Latest News Archive 2006

Radioactivity MA Marine Aggregates ML Marine Legislation BW Bathing Water MR Marine Reserves RE Renewable Energy OA Ocean Acidification PO Pollution FI Fisheries GW Global Warming CE Coastal Erosion

Decisions taken by EU Environment Council in Brussels on draft EU Marine Strategy Directive

The draft EU Marine Strategy Directive is currently being negotiated in Brussels. The aim of the Directive is to restore health to European seas (including the Celtic Seas, the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea). It will require member countries to assess the condition of the seas within their jurisdiction, and to devise programmes for their improvement and management so that the seas attain "good ecological status". This ecological status is defined in the Directive, as are the methods by which management should be deployed. Such management includes the establishement of marine protected areas (marine reserves), and the current target for the implementation of these management programmes (following assessment of the condition of the seas and formulation of proposals) is 2016.

Links for more information

The draft EU Marine Strategy Directive (pdf)

Greenpeace Briefing Paper on the EU Marine Strategy Directive (pdf)

News Release produced by Seas at Risk on the decisions taken in December 2006 by the EU Environment Council in respect of this draft Directive

Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership reports on link between climate change and biodiversity in UK seas

From the BBC News website on 29th November 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6191828.stm

Climate 'altering UK marine life'
The biodiversity and productivity of seas around the UK could already be suffering the consequences of climate change, a report has concluded.

Photograph of wave breaking over seafront

The UK's coasts are becoming stormier places, the report says

It says damaging storms have become more frequent, and rising sea surface temperatures have led to an apparent northward shift of warm-water plankton.

The "Annual Report Card" pulls together leading research on climate change's impact on the UK's marine environment. The study was compiled by the Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership. The partnership (MCCIP) - including government departments, academics and NGOs - hoped the publication would give more people better access to the research, and help them understand the issues surrounding the topic.

Warming waters

UK REGIONAL SEA AREAS
1. Northern North Sea
2. Southern North Sea
3. Eastern English Channel
4. Western English Channel and approaches
5. Irish Sea
6. West Scotland
7. Scottish continental shelf
8. Atlantic north-west approaches
(Source: Defra)

The report looked at a range of climate-related issues affecting the marine environment; from temperature changes and sea level rise to the distribution of fish species.

Each section provided an assessment of what was already happening, before outlining what could happen in the future. For example, it said: "There has been a greater incidence of severe winds and increasing wave heights in western and northern UK territorial waters over the past 50 years."
Looking at future projections, it added: "Different modelling approaches project different scales of change but indicate that wind strength and wave heights will increase."

Each of the contributing scientists rated their level of certainty about the statements within the report, as low, medium or high, based on the amount and consistency of available data. It gave a low confidence rating to the impact of climate change on the distribution of fish species because it said that observations of rare fish migrants to UK water cannot yet be directly attributed to global warming. It also added that although cold-water species had moved further north in some regions, such as the North Sea, the shifts had not happened elsewhere.

But forecasts for increases in sea surface temperatures (SST) received a high confidence rating. It projected: "Models anticipate that SST will continue to rise in all waters around the UK coast, with stronger warming in the south-east than in the north-west."

Photograph of puffin with beak-full of sandeels

Changes to fish numbers have been linked to a decline in sea birds

Warmer-water plankton had shifted 1,000km northwards in the north-east Atlantic over the past 40 years, the report card said, indicating that a change was taking place in the marine environment. The small free-floating organisms form the basis of the food web in the sea, so the availability of plankton has a major influence on the distribution of fish stocks and animals further up the food chain, such as sea birds. But the study also said that whilst the variety and distribution of marine species were being altered by climate change, it was not the only factor; commercial fishing remained the major cause of changes in fish populations.

Projection of sea levels around the UK's shores rising up to 80cm by 2080 received a "medium" confidence rating, yet forecasts of increased coastal flooding merited a "low" confidence rating, illustrating the complexities of modelling the impacts of climate change on the seas around the UK.

State of the seas

Commenting on the launch of the annual report card, UK Climate Change Minister Ian Pearson said: "Our seas play a vital role in shaping and regulating our climate and have a tremendous bearing on our future well-being." There is a lot we still do not understand about the impact climate change will have on our oceans, but the report card gives us at-a-glance the latest scientific knowledge which will improve our understanding and our capacity to act," he added.

The MCCIP was launched in March 2005 by the government and devolved administrations, as part of a commitment to assess the state of the waters around the UK. The partnership said that it would publish a report card each year to keep people informed about developments in research on the UK's marine environment.

To view the Marine Climate Change Impacts Programe (MCCIP) report go to the following website:- www.mccip.org.uk/arc/default.htm

UK's waterborne freight

Waterborne Freight in the United Kingdom 2005
DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT News Release (TR - 034 (138)) issued by The Government News Network on 30 November 2006 http://media.netpr.pl/notatka_68659.html

The Department for Transport has today published, in Waterborne Freight in the United Kingdom 2005, National Statistics on freight traffic carried on UK inland waters, around the UK coast, to and from UK offshore installations and sea dredging.

The report shows that:

in 2005, 49 million tonnes of cargo were carried on inland waters (9 per cent higher than the previous year). This included both non-seagoing traffic and seagoing traffic crossing into inland waters.
goods moved (defined a the tonnage lifted multiplied by the distance travelled) rose by 8 per cent to 1.6 billion tonne-kilometres.
inland waters traffic has fallen over the last decade in terms of both goods lifted (by 20 per cent) and goods moved (by 14 per cent).
non-seagoing traffic rose by 31 per cent in 2005 to 3.4 million tonnes lited. Goods moved in 2005 rose by 10 per cent to 0.17 billion tonne-kilometres.
sea going traffic crossing into inland waters rose by 8 per cent in 2005 to 45 million tonnes lifted and by 7 per cent to 1.5 billion tonne-kilometres moved.
total water transport, including inland waters traffic, coastwise, UK offshore oil and gas and sea dredging accounted for 6 per cent of goods lifted and 24 per cent of goods moved by all modes of transport in the UK, in 2005.
crude petroleum and petroleum products dominated total waterborne freight traffic, amounting to 47 billion tonne-kilometres of goods moved in 2005 (78 per cent of all waterborne freight).
UK registered ships handled 9.8 million tonnes of coastwise and UK offshore oil cargoes in 2005 (12 per cent of all vessel traffic).
the Thames was the busiest of the major inland waterways, lifting 19 million tonnes and moving 0.7 billion tonne-kilometres in 2005. The Forth was next busiest, lifting 8.5 million tonnes and moving 0.18 billion tonne-kilometres.

Waterborne Freight in the United Kingdom 2005 is available free of charge from the Department's Maritime Statistics Branch, Zone 2/19 Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR (tel: 0207-944 3087, e-mail maritime.stats@dft.gsi.gov.uk) or from the Transport Statistics web site at www.dft.gov.uk

Spoiled mudflats leave migrating birds short on fuel

From New Scientist 13th November '06 www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10515

A quarter of Europe's red knot seabirds have died out since 1998 because the "protected" status of an important Dutch feeding ground was inadequate to safeguard their survival.

The little wading birds have one of the longest migrations known - up to 16,000 kilometres each year, between the Arctic and the southern hemisphere. The red knots (Calidris canutus islandica) stop off at inter-tidal mudflats en route, including one in the Wadden Sea off the Netherlands, to refuel on shellfish. "The red knots migrate with tiny, atrophied gizzards (the shell-crushing organ) to save weight," says Jan van Gils at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research in Texel. On the mudflats their gizzards enlarge so they can pack in the cockles they eat.

These Wadden Sea flats are classified as a natural monument and protected under two intergovernmental treaties. Nevertheless, suction dredging, using high-pressure motor-driven water pumps, was sanctioned by the Dutch government from the 1960s until 2004, when the environmental cost of the practice was deemed to great. Suction dredging made the mud coarser and worse for cockles, whose meat-to-shell ratio fell by 11% per year for five years.

Complex food webs

Van Gils and colleagues measured the birds' gizzards using ultrasound. They found that during a stop-off, the smaller red knots were unable to enlarge their gizzards fast enough to pack in enough of the scrawny cockles to feed themselves sufficiently for the next leg of the journey. As a result, many did not survive the rest of their migration.

There has been no recovery since dredging ended, says van Gils, since the mud remains coarse. Many similar seas may suffer too, he adds, because "protection" often simply means regulating fisheries. But marine food webs are so complex, regulation may not work.

"The idea is to exploit resources in a sustainable way. We have shown that does not exist for the Dutch Wadden Sea," says van Gils

Coastwalk danger warning

From Suffok Evening Star 18th November 2006

WALKERS have today been warned of extreme danger on rights of way close to the sea after flooding washed away stretches of the famous Suffolk coast path. Experts say several lengths of the 47-mile track have been damaged with some sections impassable, due to the floodwaters, and others could be potentially dangerous.

The surge tide earlier this month breached coastal defences at several places, with the area between Sizewell and Kessingland badly affected. A mile-long section of the shingle and dune bank between Walberswick and Dunwich was washed away, causing extensive flooding to the freshwater marshes, and sea defences at Easton Broad and Minsmere were also damaged.

The Suffolk Coast and Heaths Unit is urging walkers to treat the area of marshland between Dunwich and Walberswick with great care. In particular, the popular beach walk between the two villages should not be attempted. Following the erosion of the shingle bank, the footpath is liable to rapid seawater flooding and, at such times, can become "extremely dangerous". Flooding has eroded sand dunes and, in places, left deep trenches that have been scoured out by the sea. These can be surprisingly deep and, at certain times, hold water to a depth of over one metre.

Countryside officer Nick Marsh said: "The area between Dunwich and Walberswick has been particularly affected and visitors to these areas are asked to take great care - it is easy to under estimate the power of the sea. "We are continuing to monitor the situation and work with our conservation partners, and with colleagues in Suffolk County Council's rights of way team. The situation can change from day to day, depending on the state of the tide. I recommend that walkers to look for notices in the countryside and check the Suffolk Coast and Heaths website for news of further developments."

Geologist raises fears for beach

From BBC News 20th November '06

Working dredger within 1 mile of the coastline at Felixstowe

A geologist's claims that a beach in Cornwall could wash away have been rejected by the developers of a £200m scheme to redevelop it. Glynda Easterbrook of the Open University said Carlyon Beach, made of china clay waste, could disappear unless it was replenished. The flow of waste has ended because of environmental concerns.

But Ampersand, which is at the centre of a public inquiry, says it has a number of methods to prevent erosion.

Ms Easterbrook told BBC News she was concerned that longshore drift, in which sand can be shifted by the tides, would erode the beach.
"In the 1800s the beach was not sandy, it was rocky," she said.

"The new development is very nice, but erosion of the beach is an issue that needs to be thought about because without replenishment it is quite likely that it will deteriorate and erode away."
The geologist recalled personal memories of childhood holidays spent on the beach.
"The water was white because of the industrial waste from the clay industry pouring into the rivers and the sea," she said.
"In those days it was not very pleasant to swim there at all. Also, the sand was gritty as it's nearly all quartz residue from the quarries."

Ampersand, which is currently fighting for proposals to upgrade sea defences at Carlyon Bay, said the beach would be retained by buying in new material and sea defences amid constant monitoring of erosion. Recharging material would be sorted and washed to match the beach material.

Expert advice

Ampersand wants to transform the whole area with a £200m scheme which will include shops, apartments and leisure facilities.
But there has been opposition from some local residents to the scheme, who say the sea wall plans are too big for the area.
An Ampersand spokeswoman said: "We would replenish the beach with the same material by buying it from china clay producers.
"We have got expert advice and the beach material does not seem to be moving into the bay."

'Act now' to protect against flooding

From the pages of the Western Mail of 8th November comes this story of the concern of the Association of British Insurers about our coastal defences.

More money to protect the coastline from the threat of rising sea levels is being urged. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) warns that the east coast is particularly vulnerable, and that more investment is needed now in coastal flood defences. A 40cm rise in sea levels could happen as soon as 2040, it says.

Its report, Coastal flood risk - thinking for tomorrow, acting today, assesses the threat from rising sea levels and examines the impact on the east coast and in particular on Hull, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, Southend, east London and Hastings. The research was carried out by Entec UK, one of the UK's largest environment and engineering consultancies, in collaboration with Risk Management Solutions and Risk & Policy Analysts.

It concludes: A 40cm rise in sea levels will put an extra 130,000 properties at risk of flooding. In total, 400,000 properties will be at risk, up nearly 50% on the current number. In Hull alone, 19,000 properties could suffer serious flooding, and 24,000 properties in Scotland. Without improvements to existing flood defences, the cost of a major coastal flood could soar by 400% and cost as much as £16bn. Essential services and lives will be at risk. Some 15% of fire and ambulance stations and 12% of hospitals and schools are in flood-risk areas. The elderly will be particularly affected as the number living on, or moving to, the coast is well above the national average.

The report recommends: Investing in improved coastal defences to reduce the number of properties at risk. An extra £8bn needs to be spent over the next 25-30 years to improve coastal defences along the East Coast. A long-term flood management strategy that looks at funding needs 25-30 years ahead, and regional planning that takes into account the likely impact of climate change in 50 and 100 years time.

Stephen Haddrill, director general of the ABI said, 'Climate change is happening now, and we need to act now to manage it. 'Flooding is expensive, disruptive and distressing. This report shows that Britain needs a sustained and prolonged investment in coastal flood defences. This investment needs to start now.'
In the case study areas assessed:

Hull. A major storm today would cause flooding to around 4,000 properties at a cost of £266m. A 40cm rise in sea levels would increase the number of properties affected by a major flood to 19,000 and overall coasts to £1.9bn.
Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. Nearly 1,000 properties could suffer serious flooding following a major storm today. A 40cm sea level rise could increase the number of at risk properties to 17,600 and overall coasts to £578m.
Southend and South Essex. A major storm today would be likely to cause major flooding to around 1,500 properties. A 40cm rise in sea levels is likely to increase this number to 24,000, with overall financial losses of £336m.
East London. A 40cm sea level rise would increase the number of properties affected by a major flood to 2,300.
Hastings. Sea level rises will increase the risk of wave damage to seafront buildings. Nearly 400 properties could be affected by coastal erosion.

Latest Bathing Waters Compliance

From the pages of the 'Eastern Daily Press' of 9th November '06 comes this story by Alasdair McGregor entitled 'Standards fall on our beaches' . It must be recognised that in truth, none of our resorts have been proved to pass the 76/260/EEC Bathing Waters Directive as none have had the requisite tests for salmonella or enteroviruses.

Standards fall on our beaches

The number of Norfolk bathing beaches which meet the European Union's highest water standards has fallen, a report released today reveals. While all 14 of the beaches surveyed passed the mandatory standard, the number achieving the higher level of quality - required to achieve the prestigious Blue Flag status - dropped to eight from last year's figure of 12.

In Yarmouth, bathing water at the pier and south beaches drop back to the minimum levels required to pass. However, the water off the town's north beach continued to record the highest level of cleanliness. Also showing a reduction in quality was Wells and Hunstanton main beach, while Heacham and the secondary beach at Hunstanton failed to improve from last year's minimum standard.

However, in north Suffolk all five beaches monitored in Lowestoft and Southwold continued to maintain the highest levels of cleanliness.

The survey was carried out between May 15 and September 30 - officially designated bathing months - and involved taking 20 samples to measure for bacteria.

Overall, England recorded its best ever results with 99.5pc of all bathing waters meeting EU standards, compared with 98.8pc in 2005. Only two of England's 413 monitored bathing waters on the coast and inland failed to reach the minimum mandatory standard. They are Staithes in North Yorkshire and Hampstead Heath (Ladies Pond) in London. The figures also showed that 75.1pc of all English bathing waters also reached the higher standards compared to 73.7pc last year.

Environment Minister Ian Pearson said: "This year's results represent the highest compliance with European bathing water standards since monitoring began. We should be very proud of the consistently high standard of water quality being achieved each year at our bathing waters. The money that has been invested by our water companies and others since the 1990s to improve water quality is now showing real results, bringing benefits to the environment, public health and tourism."
He added: "Work is continuing to improve water quality still further, by upgrading sewerage infrastructure and tackling diffuse water pollution from farming and urban sources. This still affects the quality of bathing water at some of our beaches and we will be working closely with farmers and others to reduce this type of pollution."

Contaminated waste dumped off Tyne estuary

BOB LATIMER, a Marinet affiliate member, has been fighting a campaign over what he says is potentially an "environmental disaster" for the North-East of England.

He has been fighting for information from Defra and the Environment Agency (EA) about the dredging of contaminated waste from former Tyne shipyards by the Port of Tyne (PoT) and the dumping of this waste on the seabed at Souter Point, 4 miles offshore from the Tyne estuary. The waste contains high levels of tributyl-tin (TBT) and heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, copper and zinc), and also levels of aluminium, dibutyl-tin (DBT), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Importantly, the licence for this dredging and dumping has been granted without a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which Defra claims is not required.

Bob is concerned that the capping with clean sand and mud of the contaminated dredged material at the dumping site has been inadequate, with the result that the contaminated material will be washed away in storms. However his particular concern is that the site chosen for the dumping is a "dispersal site" i.e. material dumped there is dispersed by tides and currents. He notes that the dumping site has been in use for over 100 years (for example, between 1988 and 1993 Westoe Colliery dumped over 15 million tons), and he believes that the EIA should have established why the dumped material from Westoe has disappeared e.g. is this a "dispersal site" unsuitable for the dumping of contaminated material? He also believes that carelessness during the dredging and dumping may have been to blame for the recent deaths of salmon and trout in the River Tyne, and he warns that bathing beaches are close to the dumping site.

Defra describes the operation as "a trial disposal operation", which is not likely to be completed until the middle of next year. Defra says it has no control over dredging in the Tyne because the Port of Tyne has its own local powers to dredge. The Environment Agency also says that it has "limited legal controls" over the Port Authority's dredging activities.

No Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was ordered on the grounds that the operation was maintenance dredging rather than capital dredging. Nevertheless, Defra has required the Port of Tyne to cap the dredged material at the dumping ground with clean sand and mud from elsewhere in the estuary to a depth of 1.5 metres in order to prevent erosion and loss of the contaminated materials due tidal forces and natural currents.

However Defra's consultant, CEFAS, has monitored the installation of this cap and found that the required standard (1.5 metres of capping sand and mud) has not been achieved. In a letter to Bob Latimer, Defra has stated "An assessment of risk to the cap by Cefas demonstrates that the cap has a maximum thickness of 1.0m and a median thickness 0.2 and 0.25m. The required cap thickness was 1.5m. Therefore the thickness of the cap is between 0.5m and 1.3m less than required. A reduction in cap thickness by 0.3m is the trigger point for further work and is the point at which PoT is compelled to act. A reduction in cap thickness by 0.5 to 1.3m significantly exceeds this trigger"
Defra have further stated:
"As you are aware, these thicknesses were not achieved and Defra have been in regular contact with the port to ensure that a sufficient cap is in place [. . . . ] It has always been the intention that more material will need to be added to the cap sourced from the port's regular maintenance dredging campaigns to replace any material that may have been dispersed over time."

Among the positives to come out of Bob's campaign is the fact that Defra has confirmed its commitment to an EIA for dredging for the second Tyne Tunnel.

There is also the fact that a committee of OSPAR, the Oslo and Paris Commission, has decided to discuss, in general terms, whether there needs to be further work on the dumping of contaminated dredged material under an inert cap. The UK has agreed to give a presentation to the meeting, on November 7-9.

Bob Latimer will be following these developments closely.

Malcolm Scott. November 1, 2006.

Footnote: In a letter dated 18th October 2006 from Defra to Bob Latimer, Defra have now advised that the required cap thickness will no longer be 1.5 metres, but has been revised to an average thickness of 0.85 metres, accompanied by continued monitoring to determine that the dredged material is not being eroded and washed away.

The Charade at Felixstowe

The following five items describe in full the ongoing machinations over the serious erosion taking place at Felixstowe which follow dredging both offshore and the enlargement of the port's deep water channel for the new massive freight containers that now use the port. It shows how, despite the clearly documented evidence and the warning given of the consequences of dredging at the Bathside Bay Public Enquiry, 'experts' who should know better remain unshaken in their false beliefs as to the cause and hence the cure. 'There are none so blind as those that will not see' - an old adage so very true here !

Each link is followed by a précis of contents. It is recommended that you access the URL to read the whole story and thus obtain the full facts.

DEFRA visit raises hopes on Felixstowe's sea wall - 7 Jun 2006

Précis: This news item tells of how a leading engineer from DEFRA inspected Felixstowe's battered sea wall in a special visit with Suffolk Coastal. The decision by John Horne, DEFRA's Governance and Delivery Programme Manager, to visit Felixstowe follows last month's partial collapse of the sea wall, and Suffolk Coastal's frustration that there was no Government funding available for new schemes this year. The proposed scheme was stopped in its tracks after the Government's announcement in December that there would be no funding for new schemes in 2006/07.

Councillor Andy Smith, Deputy Leader of Suffolk Coastal Council stated
"We hope that Felixstowe will now be recognised as a special case, and that the £6 million needed for the project will be found. We have been working closely with the Environment Agency and regional DEFRA staff to draw up a permanent replacement plan for the current defences that in April 2002 were expected to survive until 2007. However, in the last 18 months and particularly since Christmas the beach in this part of Felixstowe has experienced an unexpected and severe drop in level that has exposed and undermined the sea wall. Normally the beach levels increase during the summer but this has not happened over the last two years."

Felixstowe's coastal defence works update - 30 Jun 2006

Précis: This item claimed that the southern part of Felixstowe's sea front was getting back to normal following the placing of 3,000 tonnes of rocks along a 400 metre stretch of damaged sea wall. Andy Smith states
"Teams have started this week to repair the damage to the promenade which collapsed in many places and had a series of bad cracks in it as a result of the supporting materials underneath seeping out through the broken sea wall. By the end of next week the promenade should be back to normal, and this whole stretch will once again be completely open to the public and we will be able to remove the barriers that run along that length."

No evidence that dredging affects Felixstowe's beaches - 17 Aug 2006

Précis: This Suffolk Coastal Council item tells that they have spoken out to "try and put an end to unfounded claims that beach levels in Felixstowe have dropped as a result of dredging in either the shipping channels or off-shore".

Councillor Andy Smith, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Coast Protection, said:
"I do understand people's concern about beach levels and the consequent damage, and their fear that this may have to do with dredging. But none of the information I have, technical or historical, shows this to be true. There has been recent speculation in the resort that has wrongly linked the ongoing drop in beach levels, and the subsequent damage to the sea wall, to the dredging of materials for the coastal protection works at Southwold. There is absolutely no connection between these two events. Materials are being dredged nearly six miles off Felixstowe and then transported to Southwold for use in a similar way that we had planned to do this year as part of our coast defence works. However, this site is among those deliberately selected, and approved by the Government for dredging, as being so far out to sea that it would have no impact on our beach levels."

"I want to put the record straight before this turns into another coastal myth like the one that the material dredged from the shipping channel comes from our beach. Again, the reality is entirely different, as analysis of this material has shown that it is virtually all silt and mud. The problem we face is that there is a natural see-sawing of sand and shingle between our beaches and a series of offshore underwater banks. Historically our groyne systems have been completely successful in managing this process - except where they have deteriorated beyond a critical point. Because of the poor state of certain of the groynes this see-saw is currently heavily balanced to the offshore banks."

"All the engineering studies of which the Council is aware, including the Southern North Sea Sediment Transport Study, and those commissioned by the Council and the Environment Agency locally, have all failed to identify any connection between dredging and beach conditions. There are no facts to back up the claims that seek to link dredging to the problems that Felixstowe's beaches are suffering."

Working dredger within 1 mile of the coastline at Felixstowe
Dredger operating within a mile of the shoreline off Felixstowe, taken on 24th November '06 by a concerned Frank Brown of Bawdsey

Felixstowe South Seafront - is there a flood risk to the site? 4 September '06

Précis: Suffolk Coastal and the Environment Agency commissioned a major report from Halcrow that addressed the entire coast defence strategy for the whole of Southern Felixstowe. The Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the site is developable on the basis of criteria set by the Environment Agency who did not object to the original development proposals. It is still viable once further allowances have been made for the impact of climate change.

The ground floor level of the new housing will be set to ensure that any risk to persons and property is avoided. The site will be protected from the threat of the sea by the beach, the sea wall and the Flood Wall, which has a crest height providing protection well above the standard 1 in 200 year national standard.

The planning application for the 50-year defence scheme includes new groynes and beach improvements from Landguard to the pier has been submitted. Work should commence in the Spring of 2006, when the concrete/timber groynes will be replaced with rock fishtail groynes and the beach recharged with dredged sand and gravel. The estimated cost of the proposed works of groyne replacement and beach recharge will be about £5 million. Assuming a Government grant of 75 per cent of the cost, and matched funding from Suffolk County Council, the cost to Suffolk Coastal District Council of its share of these proposals would be around £625,000, for which the Council has set aside funding. The Flood Risk Assessment addresses this issue, and liaison with the Environment Agency has confirmed that such concern is unfounded.

Urgent works needed on seafront - 10 October 2006

Précis: URGENT works may need to be carried out as beach levels continue to drop dramatically at Felixstowe, it was revealed today. Coastal engineers are monitoring the situation on the East Beach in Undercliff Road East, where £3 million was spent on new sea defences just five years ago. In a report on the state of Suffolk Coastal's shoreline, officers say the beach between the Fludyers hotel and Cobbold's Point is continuing to fall. "The need for urgent works is being considered with a view to making recommendations to cabinet," they said in the report.

Since rocks along the frontage were rearranged and strengthened to give extra protection to the promenade, there has been a 5ft drop to the beach in places, and groynes exposed by the erosion have been smashed to pieces by the power of the sea. The massive wishbone-shaped reef of giant concrete blocks built at Cobbold's Point in 2001 has done little improve the situation, although consultants said at the time it would protect the area. Now proposals have been put forward by consultants to make changes to the reef to improve its effectiveness and it is hoped to bring a report to cabinet by the end of the year.

Elsewhere on Felixstowe's five-mile coastline, there is good and bad news. At The Dip, the traditional timber groynes, which were built in 1986 but which the council refuses to use now because of the high costs, are still providing an excellent defence 20 years on and showing no sign of deterioration. However the southern part of the resort, where part of the prom collapsed this summer and £370,000 worth of emergency work was needed, still waits for to hear when government will part with the £6m for a permanent scheme.

The report to the council said: "Depending on the outcome of on-going negotiations concerning funding with Defra and the Environment Agency, further emergency works may be required but a decision on this is in abeyance pending Defra's review of the available of funds for 2007/08. This will indicate when the major scheme can start and, accordingly, whether the current defences will have to be maintained for a further one or two winters."

Conflict of interest prompts resignation calls in row over langoustine shelling

By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor, Sun Herald 19/11/06 www.sundayherald.com/59145

An executive of the seafood company planning to shed jobs in Scotland by shipping langoustines [large edible prawns] to Thailand for shelling is facing calls for his resignation from the international environmental agency in which he plays a leading role. Mike Parker, deputy chief executive of Youngs Seafood, is a member of the board of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The council is an independent global organisation set up by environmentalists to encourage a sustainable fishing industry.

Environmental groups and one trade union argue that there is a conflict of interest between Parkers involvement with the MSC and his companys decision to send langoustines on a climate-wrecking 12,000-mile round trip.

Parker, however, denies the charge, claiming that the decision will help sustain the Scottish fishing industry. He has been robustly defended by Youngs chief executive, Wynne Griffiths.

Youngs announced last Tuesday that 120 jobs would be cut at its plant in Annan, Dumfries and Galloway, where Scottish-caught langoustines are mechanically shelled. Instead the large shellfish will be sent to Thailand to be shelled by hand, their meat returned to Annan for making into breaded scampi.

The decision prompted a storm of protest and was ridiculed as the environmental madness of globalisation. Yesterday it was reported that customers were threatening to punish Youngs by boycotting its products. Now, with the revelation of Parkers links to the MSC, the argument has escalated.

It stinks, said John Holroyd, regional organiser for the Transport and General Workers Union. It just smacks of hypocrisy. He should consider his position, and the MSC ought to question why he is acting with double standards.

Friends of the Earth Scotland pointed out that shipping langoustine half-way around the world and back could not be called sustainable. A business executive who tries to excuse such an inexcusable decision would not seem to me to be well placed to help the MSC judge what is sustainable seafood, said the groups chief executive, Duncan McLaren.

The MSC was founded in 1997 by the international environmental organisation WWF and the corporate food giant Unilever. It certifies fisheries as sustainable and has awarded its distinctive blue eco-label to nearly 450 seafood products in more than 25 countries.

Youngs has been a major force in driving the industry towards higher standards of sustainability, said Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland. We are therefore disappointed that Youngs is proposing to let bare financial considerations outweigh the environmental and social issues. This sits uneasily with the companys support for the MSC.

Parker defended his position, pointing out that the MSC focused on the sustainability of fisheries, to which Youngs was very committed. The criticisms showed a lack of understanding of exactly what I do and how the MSC works, he said.

The environmental impact of the shipments has been exaggerated, he argued. Two ships a month would carry between 400 and 600 tonnes of scampi a year to Thailand, emitting 200 tonnes of carbon annually.

I cant argue that sending food around the world is carbon-neutral, he said, but Id strongly argue in favour of my companys position and my position in promoting sustainability.

Parker was backed by Griffiths . No-one has done more to promote sustainable fisheries than Mike Parker, he said. We have an environmentally-friendly policy in all we do.

Why the DEFRA Sea Defence Cuts ?

www.libdems.org.uk/environment/story.html?id=11360

Speaking at the Environment Agency annual conference on 22nd November, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary, Chris Huhne MP challenged David Miliband to explain the source of the recent Defra cuts, which are affecting both flood defence and veterinary programs.

Defra have blamed the cuts on changes in Treasury accounting rules. However, the Liberal Democrats have unearthed evidence that the mismanagement of farm subsidies at the Rural Payments Agency is behind the cutbacks.

Higher seas 'could flood 17,500 homes'

From 'Eastern Daily Press' 7th November 2006

Rising sea levels could threaten 17,500 properties in the Yarmouth and Lowestoft areas by 2040, according to a report published today.

The forecast was made by the Association of British Insurers (ABI), which warned that the east coast was particularly vulnerable and said more investment in coastal flood defences was needed now.

Its findings emerge less than a week after Norfolk and Suffolk witnessed chaotic scenes, with widespread flooding caused by high tides being whipped up by gales.

Major roads were shut, property damaged and wildlife havens flooded as rivers burst their banks, while 41-year-old Lowestoft man Martyn Franklin is still missing, presumed dead, after waves swept him off the beach at Kessingland, near Lowestoft.

According to the ABI, this is just the shape of things to come after its report, entitled Coastal Flood Risk - Thinking for Tomorrow, Acting Today, said there could be a 40cm rise in sea levels by 2040.

It concludes that, in Yarmouth and Lowestoft:

A storm surge could affect up to 4,000 homes and businesses in the current climate. Existing flood defences would protect a quarter of these properties from flooding;
A 40cm rise in sea levels could bring flooding to 17,500 properties, leading to overall financial losses of £580m.
A major flood would cause severe disruption to the fishing industry, ports and energy industry in the North Sea.
Elderly people would be particularly affected, since the number living on - or moving to - the coast is well above the national average.

The ABI says an extra £8bn needs to be spent over the next 25-30 years to improve east coast defences.

Stephen Haddrill, the association's director general, said: "This report shows that Britain needs a sustained and prolonged investment in coastal flood defences. "This investment needs to start now."

The research was conducted by Entec UK, one of the country's largest environment and engineering consultancies, in collaboration with Risk Management Solutions and Risk & Policy Analysts.

Without improvements to existing flood defences, the cost of a major coastal flood could soar five-fold and cost as much as £16bn, the report warns.

Government U-turn over marine reserves

From the Daily Telegraph, 13th November 2006

Leaked documents indicate that the Government is about to perform a spectacular U-turn on its promise to protect marine wildlife in a network of highly protected reserves. The decision has infuriated conservationists in a week in which the Government will announce that it is not including the promised Marine Bill in the Queen's Speech but is going to introduce it later in this Parliament. Highly protected reserves or "no-take zones", where fishing is banned, are regarded by conservationists as "best practice" for protecting a representative selection of marine habitats, such as coral reefs.

Australia set up a vast marine reserve - of which the core third is off-limits to fishermen - on the Great Barrier Reef in 2003.

The first "no-take" reserve was declared in 1975 at Goat Island, north of Auckland, in New Zealand. The reserve now has prolific kelp forests, teeming with fish and shellfish, where there were once barren rocks. The reserve is extremely popular with the public, who are allowed to bathe and snorkel there. New Zealand is intending to extend its reserves because of the profusion of species they have restored.

In the United States, a 14,000 sq mile reserve has been created around the Hawaiian islands and their coral reefs.

Bill Ballantine, the New Zealand pioneer of "no-take" marine reserves, has told British conservationists that areas with no fishing or any other form of exploitation are essential because scientists simply do not understand enough about marine ecosystems to manage them more selectively.
Documents leaked to The Daily Telegraph reveal that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is ignoring this advice and is drawing up plans for a network of reserves that will not have any "no-take" element. Instead, the leaked presentation given to conservationists by Defra staff shows that marine protected areas will be designed to protect only certain designated species or habitats.They will be put in place by local sea fisheries committees, which conservationists say are institutionally biased towards commercial fishing interests.

A network of highly protected marine reserves, by which conservationists mean explicitly "no-take" areas, was promised by Ben Bradshaw, the fisheries minister, at the Marine Conservation Society's conference last year. Wildlife Link, the group that speaks for all conservation groups, has said if the Government does not impose no-take zones "we will consider the Marine Bill to be a failure".

Jean-Luc Solandt, biodiversity officer for the Marine Conservation Society, said "We are dismayed by the Government's change in stance. Ben Bradshaw said he was 'confident' that the Government would be able to meet what the society wanted regarding marine reserves. "The current position is far from that. Instead, the Government is intent on setting up another set of marine protected areas based on the same failed management structures as European special areas of conservation."

A Defra spokesman said: "We're not running away from any commitments. There will be flexible marine protected areas which take account of the marine life they are designed to protect. "They will be 'no-take' where species have dwindled to the extent that they have to be built up."

Total collapse in world fish stocks predicted by 2050

Dr. Boris Worm, Assistant Professor in Marine Conservation Biology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, has published with colleagues an article which predicts, based on current trends, that all currently commercially fished species in the world's oceans will have collapsed by 2050.

You may see the Press Release relating to this article at http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Worm_etal_2006_PressRelease.pdf

You can read the full article at http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Worm_etal_2006Science.pdf

The main points made by Dr. B. Worm and his co-authors are:

29% of currently fished species in the world's oceans are considered to be in a state of collapse in 2003 (i.e. collapse of a species is defined as when the current population is less than 10% of the known maximum population).
On-going erosion of species diversity in large marine ecosystems appears to be accelerating on a global scale. This trend is of serious concern because it projects the global collapse of all species currently fished by the mid-21st century.
There is a direct correlation between species diversity loss in large marine ecosystems and the ability of those ecosystems (the ocean's capacity) to provide food, maintain water quality and to recover from perturbations (e.g. climate change).
Marine Reserves and "fisheries closures" increased species diversity of target and non-target species. The average is a 23% increase in species richness. These increases in biodiversity are associated with large increases in fisheries productivity.

Dr. Worm's article, and the above main points from this article, underline the importance of Marine Reserves if we, as a world community, are to get to grips with the serious decline in the health of the marine environment. A strong message that comes through from Dr. Worm's article is that the greater the species diversity of a marine ecosystem, the greater is the ability of that ecosystem to deal with natural change (global warming) and man-made change (over-fishing and pollution).

This confirms that the MARINET campaign, which calls for at least 30% of all UK seas (up to 200 nautical miles) to be designated as non-extractive Marine Reserves, is on the right track in the quest to restore health to UK seas. Moreover MARINET's campaign for an extensive network of UK Marine Reserves is a central part of the MARINET campaign for a serious reform of the purpose and content of the UK Government's proposed Marine Bill.

If you have not yet read the MARINET submission to the UK Government on the issues which the Marine Bill should be addressing, and the solutions which MARINET is proposing to those issues, and if you have not yet read the MARINET article on Marine Reserves, then you should visit the Marine Bill and Marine Reserve pages.

New fears about East Head

From Chichester Observer 24th October 2006

Fears have been expressed that the government could decide to let the sea take over a Chichester Harbour beauty spot. Erosion problems have plagued East Head, at the harbour entrance, owned by the National Trust, for many years.

It has been successfully protected, amid fears that its disappearance could expose large parts of the harbour to wave action from the sea, with far-reaching consequences. But now the concern is that it could be given up to a system of 'managed retreat.'

Harbourmaster Lt-Colonel John Davis told a meeting of Chichester Harbour Conservancy - which plays a key role in looking after East Head - that the latest date for the release of a consultation draft of a strategic review of the Manhood peninsula was now autumn this year.

Tavern threatened by the waves to be rebuilt inland

Yorkshire Post, 24th October 2006

Force of nature: Matthew Fincham, joint owner of the Golden Sands Holiday Park at Withernsea, on the rapidly eroding cliff edge with the chalets of the holiday park behind him. Part of the site has already fallen into the sea through erosion.

LAST orders are about to be called at an East Coast public house in danger of slipping into the sea. For years, regulars at The Tavern in Withernsea were able to take their drinks while enjoying spectacular views of the North Sea. But now the sea is getting too close for comfort and the pub, along with part of the holiday park to which it belongs, is to be moved further inland to escape the effects of coastal erosion.
The pub is part of the Golden Sands Holiday Park in Holmpton Road, which opened in 1959 and has been run by the Fincham family for the last 12 years.

The Finchams say that work carried out to boost sea defences further north at Withernsea Promenade, completed last year at a cost of £3.5m, had led to a rapid increase in erosion at the site. They estimate 60 yards of land has fallen away in the last three years.

"You can hear rocks and rubble falling away all the time," said joint park owner Matthew Fincham, 34. "The work on the promenade has definitely speeded up the erosion. At its worst we've been moving the fence back every day."

Mr Fincham said the site had lost 77 chalets and at least 10 caravan berths during the sea's inexorable progress. The Finchams have been granted planning permission to build a new public house and provide spaces for 52 caravans on agricultural land which borders the existing site. They are negotiating purchase of the land, but hope there is still enough time to raise the estimated £1m cost of the development before the sea puts the business at further risk. Mr Fincham said: "It's been a struggle because we'd obviously planned on getting the income from the chalets we've lost. "We've got to buy the land now and then fund the development. The last thing you expect is to see part of your business fall into the sea."

Golden Sands is the latest in a series of homes and businesses to be threatened by or lost to the waves along the coastline. In 1993, the famous Holbeck Hall Hotel in Scarborough crashed into the sea and Spurn Point is also gradually being reduced, some experts predicting it will be cut off by the sea in the next few years.

A spokesman for East Riding Council, which part-funded the work on Withernsea Promenade with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said suggestions that the work had increased erosion further down the coast were incorrect. The council developed a shoreline management plan with Defra in 1998 in response to coastal erosion, but the spokesman declined to reveal future predictions for erosion. He said: "The plan is up for renewal in this financial year and it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that." Withernsea councillor Richard Stead said some loss of land was inevitable. He said: "The defences are never enough. The ideal situation would be to have concrete all the way down to Spurn Point, but we are never going to get the money from the Government to do that. "It's a question of monitoring the erosion as we go along." He added: "I'm delighted the Finchams have got planning permission because Golden Sands is a very important business for Withernsea and the town's economy. "The Finchams have run it very well for the last few years and made it successful and they have just been unlucky that coastal erosion has speeded up in recent years."

Dredging Impact at Montrose

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/facethefacts/transcript_20060804.shtml

BBC Radio IV's 'Face the Facts' programme of 4th August 2006 portrayed the story of erosion of the famous Montrose golf course and wildlife area following port dredging. Just like Mostyn, Bathside Bay and other similar situations of sudden and serious erosion following dredging, it reveals the findings and well-founded concern of the local people by numerous interviews.

You can read a transcript of this programme on MARINET's website by clicking here

Hebridean crofters use old salmon nets to halt erosion

Scotland on Sunday 24th September 06

HEBRIDEAN crofters armed with old salmon nets are defying Atlantic storms which threaten to wash their island away.

While coastal defences often involve vast amounts of concrete and millions of pounds of development costs, locals on Vatersay are rebuilding their coastline using cast-off salmon nets, secured with wires and old wooden pallets.

The scheme is now receiving official backing, with the Western Isles council agreeing to stump up £3,000 for extra materials and labour this year.

Vatersay lies to the south of Barra and in recent years raging Atlantic storms have washed away parts of the narrow isthmus which links the north and south.

Amid fears the island might be split by erosion, crofters have been tying down old salmon nets on Vatersay's beach in order to protect the beach and coastal grasslands.
Sand blown to the coast is trapped in the netting and the wood and is less likely to be scattered by gales. Over time, the build-up of sand can link up with the sandy soils, known locally as machair, and allow grass and flowers to grow. Locals and experts hope that over time successive layers of sand and earth can be built up which will protect the coastline.
So far, about 100 metres of coastland has been protected by the netting and wood, and the island's local authority - Comhairle nan Eilean Siar - has agreed to give £3,000 so that the whole 600-metre stretch linking the two ends of Vatersay can be protected. The plan is also being adopted by crofters in the neighbouring island of Barra, where erosion is also a major concern.

Michael Campbell, of the local grazings committee - which co-ordinates the work on shoring up the coastline - said: "It's just three months since we laid down the nets, but already it seems to be working. It's too early to give exact measurements of how many metres of coast have been restored, because that varies by season and tide anyway, but we are noticing that the sand is accumulating, and soil and even plants are getting a grip again."

The nets come from local fish farms, which replace the netting around their cages about every five years as they become dirty and damaged.

He added: "This saves the fish farms the cost of having to dispose of their nets. The fish farms have to get rid of their nets one way or the other and this means they can be put to use. Over time the rope in the nets just rots away so it doesn't have a long-term impact on the environment."

Top Scottish experts on coastal erosion say the crofters' technique is scientifically sound but insist more work is needed to protect the Vatersay coastline.
Professor Bill Ritchie, the director of the Institute of Coastal Science and Management at Aberdeen University - and an expert in coastal erosion in the Western Isles - said: "This technique works by slowing down the wind and so it drops any sand it's carrying at the time. It is quite common in other areas to use branches as a form of thatch to create the same effect, but this isn't really an option in the islands because there are so few trees.
"This technique will be very effective against erosion caused by the wind but the sand stablised can still be washed away by very strong waves. Having said that however, even if it is washed away, it will absorb the energy from the waves which might have damaged another part of the coast."

Dr James Hanson, a reader at Glasgow University's Geography and Earth Science Department - and a writer on coastal changes around the British Isles - said: "The crofters have the germ of half the idea, this will only go so far. In addition to this very good approach, the crofters should also be lobbying for money so that sand can be brought in and added to the beach, and there also needs to be a co-ordinated plan to plant marram grass, which will help strengthen the coastline."

A spokesman for Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, said: "Erosion is a major problem for island communities and we are anxious to help schemes succeed where we can."

Boat paint to blame for Norfolk Broads' desolation

Tributyl tin (TBT) is at last nailed as the main culprit behind the environmental catastrophe that desolated one of Britain's most important wildlife habitats, in a study led by researchers from UCL (University College London) and Acroloxus Wetlands Consultancy Ltd, Canada. Twenty years after the ban on TBT, the ecosystem remains shattered despite expensive attempts to restore it.

The current issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology reveals that introduction of the compound tributyltin (TBT) as a biocide in boat paint in the 1960s resulted in a dramatic and sudden loss of aquatic vegetation from most of the 50 or so Norfolk Broads lakes.

At the time, official fingers were pointed at contamination from sewage works and fertiliser run-off from farmland, despite suggestions from the local community that the burgeoning leisure boating industry might be to blame.

Though the use of TBT was banned in freshwater systems in the UK in 1987, the researchers say 40 years on from TBT's introduction the fragile ecosystem remains shattered despite expensive attempts to restore it.

Dr Carl Sayer, of the UCL Environmental Change Research Centre, who co-led the study, says: "For too long TBT has been neglected as a driver of environmental destruction in freshwater wetlands and even though it is no longer in use in UK inland waterways, TBT contamination and its negative effects are still being reported all over the world.
"Real concerns have been raised about TBT derived from industrial and ship breaking activities in several major river systems including the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Yangtze - all of which are connected to shallow lakes. In the case of the Yangtze, the linked shallow lakes are some of the largest in the world and, like the Broads, have experienced problems with plant loss on a large scale."

TBT was originally designed for use on the hulls of large ocean-going ships to reduce the build-up of barnacles. Since the 1970s it has been linked to a host of negative effects in the marine environment including mutations in shellfish. An aggressive marketing programme in the 1960s saw its use fashionably worldwide on much smaller craft both in the oceans and within inland waterways.
"TBT is extremely toxic and highly persistent in the environment, earning it the controversial title as the most toxic substance ever introduced deliberately by man into the aquatic environment," explains Dr Sayer.

"In freshwaters, once TBT is released from an antifouling coating it is rapidly absorbed by bacteria and algae, and eventually works its way up the food chain. Within a short period of time after the paint's introduction to the Broads, it knocked out many of the small invertebrates which are a part of the life support system for water plants - turning the waters of the Broads green with algae."

To investigate levels of TBT in the Broads the researchers took sediment cores from two lakes, one close to the centre of the boating industry and the other half a kilometre away. Results show an abrupt decline in plant and invertebrate populations at the precise time that a strong TBT signature was detected.

"The irony of the tale is that the paint was designed to stop barnacles attaching to boats - which you don't get in freshwater. By simply lifting boats out of the water once a year and using a bit of elbow grease, one of Britain's areas of outstanding natural beauty might still be intact rather than on the long road to recovery."

Source: University College London www.physorg.com/news77808376.html / Max Wallis

Suffolk archeological threats

The following article entitled "Tower may be demolished as sea moves in" by Rebecca Shepherd appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times 31st August 2006.

The owner of an historic landmark on the Suffolk coast says he may have to demolish it - after warning it could become unsafe after only one more major storm.

John Fell-Clark, who converted Martello Tower "W" into a home in 1986, has taken the difficult decision after being told that if another two metres of land at East Lane, Bawdsey, is lost the Napoleonic-era structure would be unsafe.
If the listed tower should fall onto the beach, Mr Fell-Clark would have to foot a potentially large bill for the debris to be cleared away. To avoid that, he is asking English Heritage for advice on applying for a demolition order while there is still enough room to fit heavy machinery in front of the tower.

Last night, he spoke of his "anger and frustration" at the situation, which has seen him campaign tirelessly for funding for defences along the stretch of coast.
He said: "It is a matter that I need to put in place before the winter when something drastic could happen.
"My strategy is to say that it is going to be a lot less expensive and safer to demolish it while there is enough land in front of it to get the machinery there and in controlled conditions. That's the last thing in the world I want to do."

There is currently 10 metres of land left in front of the tower, compared to the "healthy beach" protected by annually-maintained groins in the 1980s.
Around 18,000 tonnes of rocks are due to be shipped in from Norway shortly for protection works by the Environment Agency.
However, Mr Fell-Clark said this fell short of the amount engineers said the area would need to be safeguarded back in 2002 - and since then further erosion has taken place. He said it was then estimated that there would need to be 40,000 tonnes of rock in total for the work, including the amount already used to protect the area. Even with the arrival of the new rocks, Mr Fell-Clark estimated there would be a shortfall of around 16,200 tonnes.

The section is split up into two parts - the lower ground is the responsibility of the Environment Agency while the cliff coast is the jurisdiction of Suffolk Coastal District Council.
Mr Fell-Clark said the East Lane Trust was already trying to raise money to help pay for the council's section of work because of a lack of funding. But he said the Environment Agency's work only covered 300 metres from the promontory to the north, not reaching round to the south of the point - so it was looking for funds to pay for extra work there too.

Rod Hicks, project manager for the Environment Agency, said there was "never a commitment" to a larger amount of rocks than 18,000 tonnes. He confirmed the agency's work, the first phase, would protect from the promontory to the north, a stretch of 300 metres. He added that the work between the promontory to the Martello Tower was due to be undertaken in 2013.

Andy Smith, cabinet member for coast protection and deputy leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council, said: "The council considers that the Martello Tower is of national importance and should not be demolished or lost to coastal erosion so we are finalising a scheme, together with the Environment Agency and the local community, of up to £1.5million to protect East Lane, Bawdsey, with work being planned for next spring. "We will formally ask the Government if it is prepared to fund the scheme, but given that the Government has failed so far to fund the coastal defence works at Felixstowe we have also been urgently investigating alternative funding sources with representatives of the local community, with high hopes of a successful outcome. In the meantime, we are continuing to monitor the situation at East Lane, and are ready to take preventative or emergency action before next spring if necessary and if feasible within our resources."

New Thinking on 'Managed Retreat'

The following article by Steve Downes published in the Eastern Daily Press of 31st July provides some new thinking on the mass rejected Shoreline Management Plan.

'Coastal communities need breathing space'

Tim O'Riordan also suggests banning new development in the zone at risk from coastal erosion in the next 50 years. And he says any compensation scheme for those with homes and businesses "blighted" by the threat should be funded partly by levies on offshore dredging and planning applications in the zone threatened by erosion in the next 100 years.

Prof O'Riordan, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, makes the radical suggestions in a report analysing the implications of the draft shoreline management plan (SMP) for the coastline from Kelling to Lowestoft. The plan proposes abandoning conventional sea defences for all but major towns - which could condemn Norfolk clifftop communities such as Mundesley, Overstrand and Happisburgh to a watery grave. The idea of "managed realignment" has caused uproar along the coast, with house values tumbling and residents complaining that they have been betrayed by the government.

Presenting the draft report to the council's coastal issues forum, he said: "People have spoken from the heart. Their peace of mind has been interrupted, their relationships have suffered. There is a deep sense of anger that they were not treated as respected human beings by the government. Houses up to a mile away from the coast were losing value by up to 25pc. And there's still chaos out there."

He said communities should be given two to five years' breathing space before the SMP was progressed. "People will find it very difficult to negotiate if there's a gun pointing to their heads in the shape of coastal erosion. That why we recommend two years of continuing to defend the coast," he explained.

Jim Hutchison, from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), was at the forum session and promised that the government department behind the plan would analyse the report. He said: "We want to work with you all. You are at the sharp end. We will invite Tim to the next project board meeting."

Malcolm Kerby, from the Coastal Concern Action Group, said: "I like the report and the findings. Blight is an enormous issue. There's one way to stop it, and that's for the government to underwrite the threatened properties to the tune of 100pc."

Clive Stockton, deputy leader of the council, also liked the idea of a pause in the SMP. He said: "We have to buy time to allow people to move forward."

Political Pressure on SMP Grows

From the 'Eastern Daily Press of 6th July comes this story 'Protect our coast, ministers urged' by reporter Steve Downes.

Worried coastal residents have been given new hope as council leaders defied the government over plans to let the sea swallow up clifftop communities in north Norfolk. Leaders of North Norfolk District Council refused to sign up to the controversial shoreline management plan (SMP), which advocates "managed retreat" of all areas except the main towns. The document is designed to outline how the coastline from Kelling to Lowestoft will be managed for the next 100 years.

Council chief executive Philip Burton said: "We will not sign the SMP. We are not going to be browbeaten by a fear of government grant being withdrawn. Ninety-nine per cent of people rejected the proposals, and that's our starting point."

Deputy leader Clive Stockton said: "There is no way we are going to sign up to the SMP unless it addresses the issues for the people of north Norfolk. "If we cannot defend the entire coastline, there's got to be a managed situation where people are compensated and helped to get over losing everything they own."

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb agreed, and said: "I find it remarkable that the consultants can imagine that it's politically viable or indeed right for the council to support it, given the strength of feeling through the consultation process."

The defiance came as coastal residents promised "anarchy" after a last ditch bid to include the need for compensation in a key component of the SMP collapsed. There was anger in April when a response to public consultation about the SMP overlooked more than 2,500 objections and brushed over the issue of compensation for residents who could lose their homes. North Norfolk council was asked to add a foreword to the response by consultants Halcrow, spelling out the "social justice" issues. But the attempt collapsed because the members of the officer-led client steering group involved could not agree the wording. The group comprises north Norfolk, Yarmouth Borough Council, Waveney District Council, Defra, the Environment Agency, English Nature and Great Yarmouth Port Authority.

Malcolm Kerby, from Coastal Concern Action Group, said: "I have already told the client group that if they publish this without the preface there will be anarchy. "The whole thing is unacceptable as it stands. It should be withdrawn now and no further attempts made until social justice is built into it."

Anger at £200m reduction in environmental budgets

From The Independent of 3rd August '06

Environmentalists have reacted with dismay to the news that wildlife protection, waste management, protection of fisheries, canal repairs and flood defence would all have to be scaled back because of massive emergency funding cuts at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). About £200m, or roughly 5 per cent of the department's annual budget, is to be cut now because the budget has seriously overrun.

Defra is in the red because of a number of unforeseen difficulties, not least that of repairing the fiasco earlier this year at the Farm Payments Agency, when the system for distributing a new form of EU subsidy failed to cope with demand and left many farmers struggling. The cuts will impact on delivery of environmental policy in a number of areas, including the new wildlife watchdog, Natural England, which is due to replace English Nature in October.

As revealed in The Independent last week, senior figures in Natural England feel it will be hamstrung by the £12m cuts it faces. The chairman, Sir Martin Doughty, told the Environment Secretary, David Miliband, that the cutbacks risked "the wheels coming off the organisation" even before it was launched. Yet Natural England is by no means the only body facing the squeeze; spending will also have to be slashed at the Environment Agency, the Sustainable Development Commission, British Waterways and the Rural Development Service. Of these, the Environment Agency cuts will be the heaviest, at nearly £24m. Although the construction of new flood defence works would go ahead, maintenance of existing ones would be slowed down, the agency's chief executive, Baroness Young of Old Scone, said. "You can only cut back on the maintenance for a very short time. After that you start storing up trouble for yourself," she warned.

Green groups were immediately critical. "At a time when our environment faces the unprecedented threat of climate change... it is extraordinary that Defra should suffer a £200m shortfall," said Simon Reddy, policy director at Greenpeace. Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Most of Defra's energies are already spread too thinly." Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB's conservation director, said: "The RSPB fears we are about to enter an era of broken promises on wildlife."

£81m coast defence criticised

Eastern Daily Press, 3rd August '06

More than £80m has been spent defending the Norfolk and Waveney coastline in the last 10 years. But yesterday, coast defence campaigners attacked the £81.5m spending figure as "staggeringly low".

Work paid for by district or borough councils and the Environment Agency averages out at an estimated £1234.92 for every household within a mile of the sea. The cost, which is a conservative estimate based on an EDP investigation, is revealed just days after climate change expert Prof Tim O'Riordan suggested a rise in council tax to find compensation for residents who lose their homes on the coast.

Research carried out by the EDP investigation shows that from April 1996 to March 2006, Waveney District Council spent £8.4m on major projects and maintenance work, while over the same period, North Norfolk District Council spent £7.6m and Yarmouth Borough Council spent £4.9m. King's Lynn and West Norfolk District Council spent £0.9m, although no maintenance figures are available during the 10-year period. Environment Agency spending figures from The Wash to Southwold from 1996 to 2004, total £59.7m.

But Malcolm Kerby, from the Coastal Concern Action Group, said £81m over 10 years was nowhere near enough, particularly when £37m had gone into one project - the Sea Palling rock reefs scheme.
"Over 10 years, to spend £81m on the most dynamic coastline in Europe is staggeringly low," he said. "And once you take off the money spent at Sea Palling the figure looks pretty paltry. In the overall scheme of things, that's so low it's almost not seeable," he added.

Peter Boggis, the man dubbed the King Canute of East Anglia because of his DIY coast defence scheme at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, agreed that not enough was being invested in coast defences. "In the 1950s and 60s there was a lot of investment in sea defences but what we have now is not enough and the evidence for this is the way in which defences are allowed to deteriorate," he said.
"The amount of money needed to bring the coast defences up to standard is maybe 10 times what has been spent in the last 10 years."

Minister sees some of the erosion

From an article by Steve Downes in the Eastern Daily Press of 22nd August comes this story of the new environment minister Ian Perason visting North Norfolk to see the erosion. He is due to come to the east coast of Norfolk in early September, when I and Mike King of Great Yarmouth FoE and MARINET hope to meet him. Pat Gowen, 24th August '06

Erosion: Minister looks for ways forward

Beleaguered villagers who fear the sea will swallow up their homes were given a glimmer of hope today as a government minister surveyed the state of the north-east Norfolk coast.
Environment minister Ian Pearson made no bold promises of a cash injection to save communities like Happisburgh from a watery grave. But he pledged to begin dialogue on an issue that has previously been dismissed out of hand by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) - compensation, or social justice, for people whose homes and livelihoods are lost.

Mr Pearson said: "I know how serious the problem of coastal erosion is. We need to look to find new ways forward. "I want the government to seriously engage on this issue and I want to have a debate about social justice for the coastal communities. I have a lot of sympathy for homeowners that bought properties, say, 20 or more years ago and had the expectation that they would be defended forever. He added that he wanted to see the government, the district council, the Environment Agency, English Nature and local people getting together to "look at ways forward". But he said: "We've got 4,000 miles of coastline and we can't defend everything for all time."

Malcolm Kerby, from Coastal Concern Action Group (CCAG), who was outspoken in condemning Mr Pearson's predecessor Elliot Morley, said he was "hugely impressed and encouraged" by the new minister. He said: "Obviously we can't expect any minister, particularly one who's so new in post, to come here with a basket full of promises. But clearly he's a thinker and an intelligent man. He was a very brave man to come to the most troublesome stretch of coastline in the country, with the most vociferous people. However, if he doesn't measure up in the future then we won't be frightened about giving him a rough ride."

Mr Pearson was taken on a tour of the coast, including Sheringham, Cromer, Overstrand, Happisburgh and Sea Palling. He saw at first hand the devastation wrought by the sea at Happisburgh, where dozens of homes have fallen over the cliff in recent years.

And frustrated residents in a number of the villages told him how their homes have been "blighted" by the draft shoreline management plan, which proposes only protecting the main towns and leaving the rest undefended.
Jack Hall, who lives in Happisburgh, told him: "People find it manifestly unfair that this generation is the one generation that will lose everything. There's got to be a way out of this."

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, who helped to broker today's visit, said he was "encouraged" by Mr Pearson's comments.
He said: "I think it's encouraging that we are now engaging in dialogue and he's listening to us and appears to accept some of the principles.
"But it's a step by step process. There's no breakthrough yet. We've got a long way to go."

The next threat to the environment

Is Marine Mining the Wave of the Future? - from Planet Ark 21st August 06

LONDON - Record high metals prices have sent two firms scurrying into the ocean for copper and gold, but costs and environmental challenges may yet sink their plans.

Big miners have failed to keep up with buoyant metals demand from Asia so two small companies, Nautilus Minerals and Neptune Minerals, are betting on marine mining to fill the gap.

"Underwater mining is the future with the great demand from China and Asia making it possible, despite the higher costs," said Professor Anton Eisenhauer of the GEOMAR Research Centre for Marine Geosciences at Germany's University of Kiel.

GEOMAR has developed mining submarines used in diamond operations outside Namibia by giant diamond house De Beers. While offshore oil wells have been around for decades, sea mining for minerals is in its infancy. Copper prices doubling in less than a year and gold prices near record highs are helping it grows up quickly. "Not many people realise that there is potentially another 200,000 tonnes of copper reaching the market in the next three and a half years," said David Heydon, president and CEO of Canada's Nautilus Minerals.

World number one gold miner Barrick holds a 9.5 percent stake in Nautilus Minerals, which is exploring off the coast of Papua New Guinea and aims to start producing in 2009. "We are looking to produce between 300,000-500,000 ounces of gold and 100,000-200,000 tonnes of copper," Heydon said, adding there are also very high grades of silver and zinc in the ore. One of the main attractions is the high metal grades. "There is potential to find grades that haven't been seen for ages, the surface sampling from 2005 reached 12.5 percent on copper, 15 grams per tonne on gold per year," Heydon said.

The common grade for copper is 1-2 percent, according to Magnus Ericsson, director of consultancy Raw Materials Group. "For gold, 1-3 gram per ounce is very high in open pits, and under the surface one might find 5 grams," Ericsson said. By using mobile equipment it is possible to mine smaller deposits while a conventional mine must be larger to be viable. "I can mine one out, pull the pipes up and move the ship to another area 200 miles away," Heydon said.

Neptune Minerals, listed on London's junior stock market is carrying out similar exploration activity in New Zealand waters.

BIG CHALLENGES
Nii Allotey Odunton, deputy secretary-general of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), controlling all mining activities beyond national jurisdiction, predicts high costs. "The operating cost is the big problem, you bring the minerals up and then you move them into the shore to a refinery... all these costs have to be less than the aggregate you get from these metals," Odunton said.

In the 1970s, manganese nodules were mined in the seabed but in the end it proved too costly. On the other hand, diamond house De Beers' Namibian marine mining operations produced just over 900,000 carats last year. But offshore diamond mining is not as deep (120-130 metres) as Nautilus's operations of 1,600-1,800 metres depth. Neptune is exploring at levels between 120-1,800 metres.

Nautilus is in Holland and Belgium this week to talk to dredging companies which it hopes will do the mining for them.. ICH Holland Merwede, a market leader in the dredging industry, said that theoretically it should be possible to go down to 1,500 m but no one has the technology. "We are seriously looking at it, but up until now we are always confronted with the fact that if there are ore deposits in the world that are cheaper to mine, we don't go to 1,600 meters deep," said Jan Dewit, responsible for sales of mining equipment below water at ICH Holland Merwede.

The oil and gas industry went offshore in the mid-1940s and today about a third of the world's oil comes from the sea.

A remote-operated vehicle (ROV), used in the offshore industry, goes beyond 3,000 m and could be deployed to the seabed in order to scoop and recover the raw material to the surface, John Mair, global technology manager at Subsea 7 one of the world's leading subsea construction contractors, said. "The technology is not that challenging," Mair said. But it all comes down to how viable it would be, he added.
Kristina Gjerde, high seas policy adviser to the Global Marine Program of The World Conservation Union (IUCN), said the biggest environmental challenge would be disturbing sediments. "You would have to clearcut the area, you are not only breaking the bottom, but you are also stirring up the sediments which will destroy the flow and create stress on other organisms nearby," Gjerde said.

MARINET at Norwich Cathedral

Visitors to Norfolk may like to know that MARINET has a stand at Norwich Cathedral as part of the Norwich C3 Group/University of East Anglia exhibition on Climate Change, which runs from Saturday 19th August until Saturday 16th September. It is receiving enormous interest, as indicated by the photograph taken the day before it officially opened.

Pat Gowen, 19th August 2006

Erosion in the USA

It is interesting to note that the USA suffers exactly the same problems and the same causes for exactly the same reasons as we in the UK. The following editorial by Jerry Berne of Sustainable Coastlines appeared in the North County (San Diego) on 26th July 2006.

Army Corps destroying our beaches by Jerry Berne:

We are losing our coastlines. Much of this loss is manmade. Beyond the development that swallows coastal lands and its runoff stressing these, we are physically losing our coastal lands to mostly manmade erosion. We are losing habitat, not just real estate.

The main agent of this loss is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Damming river networks reduced the natural replenishment of sediment to shorelines. Harbour structures deflected more of this offshore. Yet, it is the Corps' close relationship with the dredging and coastal consultant industries that is causing the massive changes to our coastal systems and most of our erosion. Everything the Corps has done in Louisiana, our coastal canary, it is doing on all our coasts.
Navigational dredging turns waterways into ever deeper canyons, altering currents and increasing their velocities. These become flumes directing sand flows out of littoral systems. Offshore sand mining for beach "nourishment" removes protective seabed land forms ---- and seabed habitat. The temporary, often incompatible, sediment pumped onshore smothers life forms there and on reefs caught in its silt plumes. Both of these unnatural processes induce massive coastal erosion over large areas.
Coastal communities and private groups naturally seek to protect valuable infrastructure and real estate. This results in further damage as the structural methods most employed ---- groins, jetties, sea walls, et al. ---- further alter the environment and increase localised erosion. As such, these are generally heavily regulated or outlawed. Dredging, however, is actually promoted by the Corps, coastal consultants and even some unwitting environmental groups.

This results in a physical taking of real property before the legal "takings" that inflame property owners. Almost all of this is directly contracted for, supervised or otherwise authorised by the Corps, often working with state and local government agencies. Even so, by attributing erosion to "nature," these escape the political, social and financial liabilities for this damage.

The "silent lie" that nature, not man, is responsible for erosion also works for those advocating retreat from our coastlines. Again, we are losing critical habitat to a manmade crisis. To ignore this and its need for mitigation is an irrational and unenvironmentally sound response.

We do have methods shown to be effective, environmentally sound and sustainable to mitigate both this erosion and reduce global warming's sea level and storm intensity rise now threatening our Corps-weakened shorelines. The best documented of these, Holmberg Technologies, has over 30 years of international university research, professional monitoring reports and decades of empirical data to attest to its success. There are other methods, less proven, but with potential. There is even biochemical research on a pollutant that may be contributing to this erosion. Unfortunately for our shorelines, the current method, beach "nourishment," is a starvation diet.

Forty years ago, as a new hydroelectric dam drowned an Amazon rain forest, a chilling plea went out from frantic workers attempting to save the animals trapped by its manmade flood: "Time is short and the water rises." Global warming can no longer be ignored. Once again, the water is rising, only this time it's for all of us.

Jerry Berne is the founder of Sustainable Shorelines Inc. (www.sustainableshorelines.org), a nonprofit corporation that seeks to change harmful coastal policies and practices.

The Rape of Area 202

Rather as feared, but just as expected, the government has given a go-ahead to permit the continuation of dredging off Great Yarmouth, despite the overwhelming evidence of the further environmental damage that will result. This despite objection by the Parish Councils, North Norfolk Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, MARINET, the North Sea Action Group and over 250 individuals.

Area 202 is at Cross Sand only some 7 kilometres from the shoreline, adjacent to a sand bank that has already diminished since dredging began in the area. The coastline adjacent is eroding rapidly. Despite this widespread knowledge, an application was placed by Hanson Aggregates Marine Ltd (HAML) and their consultant, Marine Ecological Surveys Ltd (MES) for a new 5 year licence to dredge 1.5 million tonnes of aggregate (sand and gravel) from Area 202; coupled with thesurrender of the licence for Area 436 adjacent. The twenty year licence issued to dredge Area 202 had expired on January 1st 2006, but not all the permitted take had been exploited by the time of the termination of the licence.

The application was made originally to DEFRA under Margaret Beckett, which then passed on to the ODPM under John Prescott, and then eventually to the new DCLG under Ruth Kelly.

The ODPM failed to inform MARINET and the NSAG of the application, and furthermore ruled that the usual Press Notices were not to be published, although it was stated in the letter from MES (Marine Ecological Surveys Ltd) "In accordance with paragraph 2 (c) of the Interim Government View Procedures HAML are required to undertake consultations with interested parties".

Thus, few knew of this application, especially the general public, and it was only by the good fortune of having internal contacts that MARINET and the NSAG became aware. One must assume that following earlier protest at continued dredging that the ODPM wished to minimise the opposition by keeping the plan very quiet.

What is more, it was given by the ODPM that the usual Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Statements would not be required .These have always previously accompanied all applications so that comments on the ES update can be sought from consultees on any dredging proposal, and therefore presumably any proposed extension.

Although MARINET and the North Sea Action Group were omitted from the list of consultees, on discovering the plan and upon contact with Hanson's consultant MES Ltd, we were supplied with copies of the Environmental Statement Update which addressed the relicencing application for a further 5 years.

This later information revealed that the presence of protected species such as horse mussels and Ross worm were not indicated and that the seabed of the dredged area had already been reduced by between 3 and 5 metres, a sure factor leading to beach and sand bank draw down. Despite this, the ODPM granted Hanson permission to dredge for a further six months beyond the termination date given by the earlier licence.

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly has given the go-a-head to continue dredging this area despite protests from Norfolk County Council, North Norfolk Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, local Parish Councils, ourselves, local action group and shoreline residents, despite the wealth of evidence given that this application should be refused.

In a 30th June communication letter to Pat Gowen, Nigel Bayliss of the DCLG wrote:
"In the light of all the information put before her the Secretary of State has, as required by the EC Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, 'screened' this proposed variation to an existing favourable Government View and concluded that it is not likely to have significant effects on the environment and, therefore, does not need to be subjected to the Environmental Impact Assessment procedures.
Additionally, following consultation with DEFRA and taking into account the views of those bodies consulted on the proposed variation, in particular the views expressed by the Government's statutory advisors on the environment, the Secretary of State has decided that the existing favourable GV for Area 202 should be further varied to allow the extraction of up to 1.5 million tonnes of aggregates over a 5 year period from 1 July 2006, subject to an annual maximum of 0.5 million tonne."

On 7th July '06 the 'Eastern Daily Press' summed up the opinion in 'Erosion fear after dredging approved' by reporter Tom Smithard, who wrote: -
"The seabed off Norfolk is set to be dramatically lowered once again after the government approved a controversial application to dredge 1.5m more tonnes of sediment. Campaigners said today that the decision means that villages such as Happisburgh, Scratby and Winterton will now suffer coastal erosion "much quicker and much greater."

When news of the application was revealed in the EDP in February it caused widespread anger among coastal campaigners and councils - not least because the government had tried to keep it quiet.

Southampton-based Hanson Aggregates Marine had been dredging the 3km-sq patch 7km off the coast of Yarmouth for 20 years, but in the last five had only managed to mine 900,000 tonnes of its 2.5m tonnes allocation.

With its contract coming to an end, HAML applied to John Prescott, then the minister responsible, to extend its licence by five years, allowing it to mine the remaining 1.5m tonnes of sediment.

An environmental report by the company admitted that in the actively-dredged parts of the patch the seabed level had been reduced by five metres since 2003 - which coastal campaigners said almost certainly had led to beach erosion.

But because the application from Hanson was an extension rather than to dredge a new zone, the government ruled that no announcement of a public consultation period was necessary.

And despite receiving more than 250 letters of objection from villagers and Norfolk councils, it was revealed today that new communities secretary Ruth Kelly has now granted Hanson's application.

Nigel Bayliss, spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government, said: "The Secretary of State has screened this proposal and concluded that it is not likely to have significant effects on the environment.
Following consultation with Defra the Secretary of State has decided that the existing licence should be varied to allow the extraction of up to 1.5m tonnes of aggregates over a five year period."

Tonight Pat Gowen, of the North Sea Action Group, said: "So much for our bodies supposed to be protecting the environment. The government has placed short-term economic gain as paramount to the needs of fishing, coastal tourism, coastal housing and wildlife considerations. "The resulting erosion from Happisburgh to north Essex will result much quicker and be much greater, to add even more to that already existing."

And Malcolm Kerby, of the Coastal Concern Action Group, said: "This is an absolutely, utterly appalling decision. This has more to do with the fact we've got the 2012 Olympics, which will need millions of tonnes of aggregate to build. Once again it is East Anglians who will be forced to pay the price for development elsewhere."

HAML (Hanson) has applied to the ODPM for a licence to dredge for a further 5 years this already dredged area because the licence earlier given expired on January 1st 2006. Without consultation with any of the stakeholders, HAML were given permission to continue to dredge for a further six month period whilst the application is dealt with.

The location of Area-201 and MARINET's detailed objections to further dredging are to be found on this website by going to the 'Marine Aggregate Dredging' page and then to the 'Examples of Objections to Dredging Proposals' or by clicking here.
Area 202 and adjacent area 436 can be seen at the far top left of the map, all an associated part of a huge area already dredged.

Pat Gowen, 11th August '06

Huge marine wetland starts life

From BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/5143802.stm comes the following rather optimistic story of one of the first actions of 'Managed Retreat'
Local environmentalists are reporting that all that has been produced so far is a large mud flat and a huge deposit of mud and silt in the sea, but perhaps it is early days yet to determine if in fact a new wildlife site is being created rather than a new form of man made pollution. My own feelings sense that this is really a cover for liberating even more aggregate off the east coast to replace that already dredged to depletion.
But with the loss of the wildlife habitat now being destroyed by the Essex port extensions, the government were obliged to be seen to produce a replacement.
Pat Gowen 29/07/06

A 300m section of a sea wall has been breached to begin the creation of the UK's largest man-made marine wetland.

The sea pours through the defence breach at Wallasea Island

Almost 115 hectares has been flooded at Wallasea Island, Essex, to create wetland, mudflats, saline lagoons and seven artificial islands. The £7.5m government-funded project aims to replace bird habitats lost to development, improve flood defences, and create leisure opportunities. Excavators were used to breach the sea wall on Tuesday to allow the sea in.

Mark Dixon, who is managing the Wallasea Wetlands Creation project, said the tide spread across land that was once wheat fields and it began the slow process of creating new salt marsh and mudflats. He said: "It's eventually going to be a new sea defence, so you're going to have brand new mudflats, brand new salt marshes and they'll absorb the tide's energy. "You've got a big new sea wall at the back, protecting land and property, and then in front of it a series of lagoons and islands and creeks, which birds and people can enjoy."

Biodiversity Minister Barry Gardiner said: "Salt marsh is more rare than rainforest, and is important to people, particularly as a flood and storm defence, and to wildlife. Hundreds of thousands of wetland birds rely entirely on the Essex salt marsh for their food each winter. "Wallasea Wetlands will be a wonderful feeding and roosting habitat for birds like oystercatchers, avocets and little terns, which have been gradually displaced from the area during the last 50 years, as well as creating a haven for other rare wildlife."

It is hoped the wetland will also provide for better fish nurseries.

John Hesp, of Wallasea Farms, said the flooding would help improve the area's flood defences. He said: "What we're doing here by setting the seawalls back - we call the process managed re-alignment, is that the existing seawalls were in such poor condition, they were simply not sustainable in their present location. "We've built a new seawall landward and now that we've breached, we've breached at the points where we have the maximum pressure on the estuary. "So, we've relieved that pressure, enabled the estuary to breathe and we've created more space for water."

Coastal communities need breathing space

Eastern Daily Press, 31st July 2006.

Householders on the East Coast should pay more council tax to provide funds to compensate residents whose homes are threatened by the encroaching sea, says an expert on climate change. Meanwhile, he thinks the government should find the cash to maintain existing defences for two years to allow time for a coastal compensation fund to be set up. Tim O'Riordan also suggests banning new development in the zone at risk from coastal erosion in the next 50 years. And he says any compensation scheme for those with homes and businesses "blighted" by the threat should be funded partly by levies on offshore dredging and planning applications in the zone threatened by erosion in the next 100 years.

Prof O'Riordan's team was asked by North Norfolk District Council to conduct the research. It sent detailed questionnaires to 500 householders and 100 businesses at Overstrand, Trimingham, Mundesley, Bacton, Walcott and Happisburgh. Presenting the draft report to the council's coastal issues forum, he said: "People have spoken from the heart. Their peace of mind has been interrupted, their relationships have suffered. There is a deep sense of anger that they were not treated as respected human beings by the government. Houses up to a mile away from the coast were losing value by up to 25pc. And there's still chaos out there." He said communities should be given two to five years' breathing space before the SMP was progressed. "People will find it very difficult to negotiate if there's a gun pointing to their heads in the shape of coastal erosion. That why we recommend two years of continuing to defend the coast," he explained.

Clive Stockton, deputy leader of the council, also liked the idea of a pause in the SMP. He said: "We have to buy time to allow people to move forward."

Political awareness on erosion growing

Other than the quote "It is a natural process and the forces of nature cannot be endlessly defied", which erroneous assumption we have corrected by writing to him explaining the basic cause of the erosion, this is good news. - Pat Gowen

'Senior Tory views erosion', Eastern Daily Press, 24th July '06

The flurry of cross-party political interest in the thorny issue of coastal erosion in Norfolk continued at the weekend with a visit by a senior Tory MP. Shadow environment secretary Peter Ainsworth spent Friday evening and Saturday morning in and around Cromer to discover more about erosion, fishing and farming.
Mr Ainsworth's trip came in the midst of continuing top-level political interest about coastal issues - which included a recent visit by Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell to Winterton and a pledge from the government's newly-appointed environment minister Ian Pearson to come to the area as soon as he can.

After his visit, Mr Ainsworth said he had serious concerns about the proposed shoreline management plan for parts of the Norfolk and Suffolk coast, which has caused such controversy in the past 18 months. "We read and hear and talk in Westminster about coastal erosion, but it is very different when you see it," he said. "It is a natural process and the forces of nature cannot be endlessly defied but the shoreline management plan puts everyone in uncharted territory. "Efforts have always been made to minimise the impacts, but now the government says it is going to change policy and let it go. "There are clearly big questions to be asked about the Human Rights Act and compensation. "Managed retreat may be the only option in some places. But our starting point should be the status quo and then we debate which areas cannot be defended. The suggested government policy is the other way round and I think that is wrong."

Mr Ainsworth said he was pleased to see the positive attitude of local people. "I was very impressed at the level of engagement of the local people and that in itself will give Defra and the Environment Agency a lot to chew on."

Malcolm Kerby, co-ordinator of the Coastal Concern Action Group, said the interest was deeply significant. "We now have some astute politicians involved in this issue, on all sides of the political divide, and there seems to be a growing consensus among many of them. "The key is to work together."

Coast fears, as SSSI agreed

Eastern Daily Press 30th June '06

Plans for an extended Site of Special Scientific Interest in north Suffolk have been ratified. The decision, at a meeting in Oxford, by English Nature's council to back its own scheme means an area of land along the coast between Pakefield and Easton Bavents, near Southwold, and the wildlife within it now have legal protection. But objections from people who feared that homes and land would be lost if the SSSI status was put in place and the cliffs at Easton Bavents were left to be eroded by the sea, were rejected by the council.

Fears had been raised that any sea defence work, including the DIY work of Peter Boggis, dubbed King Canute, would have to end. However, a statement from English Nature said that by law it had to base any decision on SSSI status on whether the site is of special interest.

Gareth Dalglish, from English Nature's Suffolk team, said he could understand people's concerns, but decisions on sea defence work are made by local authorities. "People are understandably worried about coast erosion," he said. "But the decision to confirm the SSSI is not a decision to allow the coast to erode. The policy for coast protection is decided by local authorities."

The area was already protected as a SSSI but English Nature had to take the unusual step of re-notifying the site after natural coastal erosion saw the coastline recede behind the original boundaries drawn on the map.

The new Pakefield to Easton Bavents SSSI is nearly eight miles long and will cover more than 1800 acres of land. The SSSI is renowned as a nationally important area for birds such as the bittern, habitats such as saline lagoons and vegetated shingle and for its geology.

Protesters' victory in fight to keep sea at bay

The Telegraph 10th July 2006

A scheme to allow the sea to flood farmland adjacent to an estuary has been rejected by two district councils. The Environment Agency, English Nature and the National Trust all backed the plan to create a saltmarsh in the Cuckmere estuary, East Sussex. But a £1 million proposal to build up the banks of the Cuckmere river by a foot, which was tabled by the scheme's opponents, was accepted unanimously by Lewes district council and by 7-1 by Wealden district council planning committee. In doing so, councillors voted down the recommendation of their own officers.

Protesters said the proposed "managed retreat" scheme would have created mudflats not saltmarsh and interfered with footpaths that bring 450,000 visitors a year to the valley.

Lack of cash for coastal defences puts homes at risk

The Telegraph, 10th July '06

Tens of thousands of homes near the coast are at risk because funding for repairs to sea defences is "woefully inadequate", say local government leaders. Council chiefs called for the £75 million annual budget for repairing sea defences to be drastically increased because the Government has run out of money even for urgent repairs this year.

With fears of global warming making storm surges more violent and sea levels expected to rise by 0.3 metres over the next 50 years, the Local Government Association's annual conference called for a more comprehensive long-term system of funding for the defences.
Councils are expressing increased concern because, despite claiming to spend £75 million on coastal defence schemes, and a total of £110 million if Environment Agency funding is included, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has told them it has no money for urgent works this year because projects overran last year.

For example, in Felixstowe, Suffolk, 50 yards of sea wall protecting the promenade collapsed in May. The wall protects houses that were left under-water in the 1953 floods. Jeremy Schofield, of Suffolk coastal district council, said: "We've tried to do temporary emergency works but they don't rebuild the beach or solve the fundamental problem. The worry is that what we've done won't be sufficient to keep the winter storms at bay." The council asked Defra to help pay for a £5 million scheme to protect homes and businesses worth £400 million.
But it was told there was no money available for coastal defence in this financial year because of an overspend. "They have turned the tap off as if nature had stopped eroding the beaches and undermining the sea wall," said a bemused Mr Schofield.

Scarborough has identified £35 million that needs to be spent over the next five years to stop historic parts of the town falling down the cliffs. John Riby, of Scarbourgh borough council, said: "We are extremely concerned that more emphasis is being placed on river flooding, while losses on the coast are permanent. We hope we don't have another catastrophe before something is done."

Ian Pearson, the environment minister, defended the Government's spending on coastal erosion. "The Government is committed to effective management of flood and coastal erosion risk," he said. "The total of central and local government funding is at a record high and has increased 40 per cent in real terms. "A significant amount of this is spent on the coast with large sums invested at Blackpool, Brighton, Bournemouth, Lyme Regis, Scarborough and many other locations." Mr Pearson said it would be "unrealistic" to expect to maintain the coastline in all places as it was now, especially with the challenges posed by climate change.

Coastal communities: decline, revival and defence

is a paper given by Liberal Democrat shadow environment secretary Chris Hulme MP at the Symposium on coastal futures held at Skegness, Lincolnshire on 18th July 2006 addresses this issue, and terminates with: -

"Britain's coastal communities face many challenges. Challenges of renewal of their economy, investment in their people but also as always the challenge of the elements in the form of coastal erosion, storm surges and flooding. Sadly, the debate about climate change can no longer be solely about heading off the problem. Because CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for a century, we know that global warming will continue for many years even if our international efforts to restrict greenhouse gases are successful. That is why some adaptation has become inevitable, and why coastal communities need support in making that adaptation. Coastal villages and towns are in the front line of Britain's battle against climate change, and are an important gauge of the difficulties to come".

To read the entirety of this interesting philosophical paper please go to the following page at the Lib Dem site.

Fishing Focus

The third issue of 'Fishing Focus', the Marine and Fisheries Newsletter, a joint publication from Defra and the Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA) is now available on the web, downloaded by clicking on www.defra.gov.uk/fish/pdf/fishfocus-issue3.pdf It carries some interesting content, including information of the latest consulation document on the regulations and procedural guidance on Marine Minerals Dredging.

In "Charting a New Course" www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/sfp/newcourse.pdf Defra's action plans to deliver the policies in 'Securing the Benefits', the UK Fisheries Administration's response to the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit "Net Benefits" report, Defra made a commitment to improve its communication with stakeholders. Fishing Focus is one more way of keeping stakeholders in touch with developments and inviting their views. Defra and MFA welcome feedback on each issue of the newsletter. You can comment by emailing fishingfocus@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Erosion fear after dredging approved

Eastern Daily Press 7th July 2006

The seabed off Norfolk is set to be dramatically lowered once again after the government approved a controversial application to dredge 1.5m more tonnes of sediment.

Campaigners said today that the decision means that villages such as Happisburgh, Scratby and Winterton will now suffer coastal erosion "much quicker and much greater".

When news of the application was revealed in the EDP in February it caused widespread anger among coastal campaigners and councils - not least because the government had tried to keep it quiet.

With its contract coming to an end it applied to John Prescott, then the minister responsible, to extend its licence by five years, allowing it to mine the remaining 1.5m tonnes of sediment.

An environmental report by the company admitted that in the actively-dredged parts of the patch the seabed level had been reduced by five metres since 2003 -which coastal campaigners said almost certainly had led to beach erosion.

But because the application from Hanson was an extension rather than to dredge a new zone, the government ruled that no announcement of a public consultation period was necessary.

And despite receiving more than 250 letters of objection from villagers and Norfolk councils, it was revealed today that new communities secretary Ruth Kelly has now granted Hanson's application.

Nigel Bayliss, spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government, said: "The Secretary of State has screened this proposal and concluded that it is not likely to have significant effects on the environment. Following consultation with Defra the Secretary of State has decided that the existing licence should be varied to allow the extraction of up to 1.5m tonnes of aggregates over a five year period."

Tonight Pat Gowen, of the North Sea Action Group, said: "So much for our bodies supposed to be protecting the environment. The government has placed short-term economic gain as paramount to the needs of fishing, coastal tourism, coastal housing and wildlife considerations. The resulting erosion from Happisburgh to north Essex will result much quicker and be much greater, to add even more to that already existing."

Seaside resort fights erosion with help from France, Norway and China

From 24dash.com 15th May 2006

A traditional seaside resort beloved of writers and artists is to have a chunk of France, Norway and China embedded in its landscape in an attempt to stop coastal erosion. Lyme Regis, in Dorset, was immortalised in the film version of John Fowles' novel, The French Lieutenant's Woman, where Meryl Streep's heroine stood looking out to sea from the harbour jetty, known as The Cobb.

Landslips and coastal erosion have made the quintessential English seaside town a favourite for fossil-hunters and its Jurassic pedigree has given it the status of a World Heritage Coast. It means Lyme Regis has the same importance as The Grand Canyon in America and The Great Barrier Reef off Australia.

A £16 million project, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and rural Affairs, is now underway to replenish the beach and strengthen the cliff face to protect the area from landslides and erosion. Around 30,000 tonnes of sand is being imported from northern France, 36,000 tonnes of Larvikite rock from Norway, 70,000 tonnes of shingle from the Isle of Wight in Hampshire and 400 tonnes of granite from China and Portugal, as well as Portland stone.

Nick Browning, project manager for West Dorset District Council, said the sand can easily be shipped from Caen in France. It is the right colour and consistency and will not wash away easily. He said: "It has the correct properties we are looking for in sand. It will be stable, people won't sink in to it too much, and it's the right colour and grade for the holidaymakers." He added: "One of the criteria is that it is suitable for building sandcastles and for people to sit on and that it's a nice beach sand for recreation and for amenity."

The Norwegian rock was chosen as armour for the more exposed parts of the cliff face because it lasts three times longer than Portland stone. "These materials will protect the sea front from storm damage and help support the tow of the slopes and help protect the beaches," said Mr Browning.

The main beach at Lyme Regis will reopen for the summer holiday season in July and August this year.

Councils' authority could extend into the sea

Eastern Daily Press' of 19th June 2006

The sea could be handed over to the control of district councils, it was revealed last night. Authorities that already look after planning in coastal areas are pushing to extend their reach to a strip of the North Sea up to 12 miles out. Led by the Local Government Association (LGA), councils are interested in the radical change being added to the government's marine bill, which is out for public consultation.

Currently, councils are only in charge of land up to the low water mark - from which point a host of organisations take over. They say the system leads to confusion and a lack of "joined-up thinking" about the effects of things like dredging and wind farms on sensitive areas.

The LGA has written a paper in response to the bill, in which it suggests the idea of extending the influence of councils.

Chairman of the LGA coastal issues group Godfrey Allenson said: "It seems a little bit crazy that developments like dredging and wind farms can take place close to the shore but local authorities have no say, but they are things that 20 or 30 years ago were not envisaged." He said the LGA believed councils, which make planning decisions along the sea front, should also be responsible for what happens just off the coastline, as it would lead to decisions being made in the interests of local people, and to the better management of fisheries.

North Norfolk District Council's cabinet has already expressed interest in "close involvement" in managing the strip of sea. Deputy leader Clive Stockton said: "We need to consider whether we would support local authority involvement up to the 12-mile limit. "If we don't have involvement, we will have a mish-mash of responsibilities." Peter Frew, the council's head of democratic, legal and property services, said: "It's something that's worth looking at as a way of overcoming how we manage the interface between land and sea."

The marine bill is being introduced in a bid to improve management of all the sea and coast's resources - including fish, sand and minerals. It follows the government's election manifesto pledge to "introduce a new framework for the seas that balances conservation, energy and resource needs". But the draft bill currently omits to mention the oil and gas industries as key players - a move labelled "barmy" by Mr Stockton. He said: "One can't but feel a little bit uneasy when a bill that's being billed as very important goes on to omit one of the most important factors - oil and gas extraction."

Mr Frew said: "This claims to be an all-embracing proposal for the management of our marine environment. "But it has some serious omissions. It doesn't include the oil and gas extraction industries, nor does it include the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. "That's seriously flawed, given the activities - particularly in the North Sea - of the oil and gas industries and the potential impact they could have. "The lowering of the sea beds from that action is potentially greater than the lowering through dredging."

Cash boost for Suffolk coastal defences

East Anglian Daily Times' of 19th June 2006

The Martello tower at Bawdsey, near Woodbridge

THE Environment Agency is to spend £1.5million on protecting a vulnerable stretch of coast near a Martello tower. The agency will carry out two phases of work at the East Lane sea defences, north of the inhabited Martello tower at Bawdsey, near Woodbridge. Up to 27,000 tonnes of rock will be used in the scheme - it is hoped work will start next month - and the project has been given the go-ahead by Suffolk Coastal District Council.

Philip Ridley, head of planning services at Suffolk Coastal, said: "The proposed development involves the deposit of additional rock armour to strengthen and enlarge the area protected by existing rock armour around the East Lane World War II defences. "It will place rock structures further out than the existing and extend the area protected further south to provide protection to the Martello tower and adjacent house." He said a significant proportion of the work would be undertaken from the sea and the design life for the flood defence work was 10 to 20 years.

The tower is owned by John and Suzanne Fell-Clark who have anxiously monitored erosion south of their ancient property for many years. Their building is only 10 metres from the edge of a cliff. There are three other towers between Bawdsey and Shingle Street and they would also be vulnerable if East Lane flood defences failed. Mr Fell-Clark said: "We are delighted that the Environment Agency has finally been able to find a way to put these works in progress. "They have been planned for years and they have found a way without using grant aid from Defra. "Although all the work qualified under the Defra criteria, there was no money. "The Environment Agency has found money from last year's and this year's budget and I understand that plant could possibly be coming on site at the end of this month, with work starting in July."

Last year 14 metres of land south of his tower were eroded in only eight months before the winter.

More emergency work for resort

Suffolk Evening Star of 15th June 2006

ANOTHER part of Felixstowe seafront is to have emergency work to protect it from possible flooding because of falling beach levels, it was revealed today.

Contractors working for Suffolk Coastal will next week rebuild the rock support wall along Undercliff Road East, near Cobbold's Point. Erosion has now undermined the rocks, which were put in place in 2001 as a "temporary measure" to protect the prom after the shore level dropped dramatically and the waves started sucking material out from underneath the sea wall.

The problems with the falling beach level and shifting of the rocks was highlighted earlier this year by resident Peter Wheatley, who monitors the coast. He was concerned for the prom and also the safety of the public who climb on the rocks, as the movement of the boulders had opened up deep holes between them into which a child could fall.
He said the situation was now getting worse. "When you stand on the prom now and look down among the rocks, you can see the waves washing right through them and hitting the sea wall," he said. "I have been trying to get a remote-controlled camera to put down between the rocks to see exactly what is happening because I think the prom could be at risk."

Suffolk Coastal council deputy leader Andy Smith confirmed action was to be taken. "We need to urgently rebuild the rock support for the sea wall. This unfortunately will mean some noise and disruption to local residents and visitors alike but our contractors will clearly try to minimise any problems," he said.
"This work will involve the use of heavy machinery, and lorries delivering rock. Access to the site is also only possible at low tide and there will be times when the contractors are there early in the morning and late into the evening. "We are writing to those homes most likely to be affected by the inevitable noise, and to beach hut owners affected to warn them that work will begin on June 22 and should be completed within a few days. I would apologise publicly for any problems that occur but I would stress that this is vital work that will help protect the sea defences in this part of Felixstowe."

Work is also taking place in the south of the resort, where 3,000 tonnes of rock is being placed to protect 400 metres of coast where the prom is collapsing.

Villagers' DIY bid to protect coast

Eastern Daily Press of 12th June 2006

A new era was dawning for a threatened clifftop community in Norfolk today as residents were on the brink of getting crucial support to pay for their own sea defences. The do-it-yourself bid to turn the tide is likely to get the blessing of North Norfolk District Council after 17 years of failed attempts to get government cash to bolster the cliffs at Happisburgh.

As a succession of houses were swallowed up by the sea, residents grew increasingly fearful that theirs would be next - so they set up Coastal Concern Ltd to raise money for the work needed. Today, the council's cabinet is expected to give its support to the group's bid to raise at least £750,000. And, in an unprecedented move, officers are urging members to agree to the council carrying out the work itself - using the money raised by Coastal Concern.

The dual recommendation is crucial, as members of the public do not have the legal right to carry out sea defence work without council support.

Last night, group spokesman Malcolm Kerby said if cabinet endorsed the move, it would be the "green light" for fundraising. He said: "If we could raise £750,000 - the cost of the last scheme that didn't happen - then we could hopefully get other funding support to top it up. Then we would be in business." He said a positive decision today would enable the group to begin to approach villagers and businesses for financial support, and to formulate a fundraising action plan.

The potential breakthrough comes a few days after local campaigners were buoyed by supportive comments from environment minister Ian Pearson.

Mr Kerby said: "We've now got every tier of national and local government declaring its intention to work with us. We're not going to raise millions overnight, but I hold out a lot of hope that we will succeed."

The council has submitted a host of proposed schemes to protect the Happisburgh cliffs, but each bid has been rejected by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Ministers have said the value of the homes that would be saved does not match the potential cost of a scheme.

The situation has echoes of that of Suffolk's 'King Canute' Peter Boggis, who dumped thousands of tonnes of soil and building waste on to the beach to stop his home from toppling off the clifftop. In November last year he had to abandon his efforts because of changes to waste management laws. Mr Boggis did the work at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, initially without the permission of Waveney District Council - while the Happisburgh initiative is being done in liaison with the council in north Norfolk.

Today's cabinet report says the council should carry out any work paid for by Coastal Concern "to ensure the technical criteria are met". It says: "The council has responsibility for a larger length of coast than just Happisburgh and must ensure that any works there do not affect other lengths of coast unduly or adversely."

Change of Government Department

Resulting from the recent Government reshuffle, a new Government Department has been set up in place of that of the ODPM, headed by John Prescott. Now issues such as Offshore Aggregate Dredging is to be attended by the DCLG, the Department for Communities and Local Government. As a result, new contacts are now in vogue for those attending the Minerals and Waste Policy Division, with the following changes: -
The mailing address is now: -

Nigel Bayliss
Minerals Planning Casework Officer
Planning - Resources & Environment Policy Division B
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 4/B1
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU

Tel: 020.7944.3875 Faxs: 020.7944.3859
e-mail: nigel.bayliss@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Web Site: www.communities.gov.uk

Pat Gowen, 10th June 2006

Consultation on MAD

The new Governments Department for Communities and Local Government (the authority having been passed on to them from the ODPM) have just sent out an imposing document entitled 'Consultation Paper on Draft Marine Minerals Dredging' asking recipients to comment (by 28th August 2006) upon it's content on: -

.... the draft Environmental Impact Assessment and Naturals Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2006 (the draft regulations) and ...

.... draft procedural guidance (Marine Minerals Guidance Note 2: The Control of Marine Minerals Dredging from the English Seabed) on the draft regulations insofar as they apply to the extraction of marine minerals by dredging in English waters.

The Resulting final regulations will be put in place a new statutory procedure, to replace the current informal 'Government View', for the control of mineral dredging and to transpose the EIA by means of statutory procedure. This has to be seen as a possibility of an achievable improvement from the current comfortable 'in house' method employed, and could well lead to a degree of protection. No doubt this has been provoked by the impending European Court action.

This consultation document for the draft marine minerals dredging regulations is freely available to anyone who requests a copy. Hard copies can be obtained by contacting Matthew Louis on 0207-944 3877 or by e-mailing: - matthew.louis@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Furthermore, copies can also be downloaded free of charge by visiting: www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1500386

The DCLG website www.communities.gov.uk had (up to and including 8th June) yet to be launched, whilst their telephone 0207-944 3859 only had an answering machine, but is undoubtedly operational by now.

Pat Gowen, 10th June '06

New head, new outlook, new understanding?

Ian Pearson, who took over the environment portfolio from Elliot Morley in the recent government reshuffle is to visit the Norfolk Coast to see for himself the problems of erosion. His predecessor had consistently refused each and every invitation to see the damage that his policies (and lack of them) were causing. When Elliot Morley did arrive in Norfolk on a visit during the election campaign, he promptly fled when he discovered that a group protesting on coastal issues were there to meet him.

It is hoped that the new Minister will accept a request to meet MARINET and the NSAG during the impending visit.

Pat Gowen, 10th June '06

UK in trouble over dredging

It would appear that MARINET's efforts have resulted in the UK Government soon to fined heftily in the European Court (again!).

The recent European Court of Justice ruling has found the UK government guilty of non-compliance with regard to implementation of the Habitats Directive in National Law , specifically the Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging Regulations).

The ruling referred to is cases C-290/03 and C-508/03, released on 4th May this year. The European Court of Justice affirmed that member states must allow for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) of major projects to be carried out at any stage of multi-stage planning procedures, and ruled that English planning law incorrectly allows for EIAs only before principal planning decisions and not subsequent implementing decisions.

If we can establish Environmental Impact Assessments both during and following dredging operations, they should show evidence of damage, and go a long way to preventing it in future. It follows too that MARINET's rebuttal of these assurances of non-damage fed back from the EIA providers may have to be reassessed by more meaningful investigation(s).

Latest East Anglian Erosion Update

image of Winterton Café adjacent to drop to the beach

The dunes of Winterton-on-Sea are still eroding, although attenuated since the recycled tank-trap were placed at the toe of the dune system. (see www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/canute.html ). The café, once over 100 metres from the sea prior to major offshore aggregate stripping, is still perched perilously over a steep drop, but survived the winter and may be able to continue in business this summer.

Diane Wrightson's hotel and café on Beach Road, Happisburgh (see www.marinet.org.uk/mad/madbrief.html ) is now overlooking a steep precipice and has already lost the garage. Sadly, it has now had to close due to the danger of a sudden cliff fall that could plunge the entire building into the sea.

The once rapid erosion at Hemsby has reduced remarkably, with very little loss for the past three years, but Scratby, once with very little loss of beach and dune, is now eroding dangerously fast. Rock bunds have now been placed by Great Yarmouth Borough Council that should reduce this.

Felixstowe is about to lose its beach café and promenade, but urgent work by the Council is now ongoing hoping to prevent this. For more information on the problems at Felixstowe see the March and April 2006 section of www.marinet.org.uk/mad/presscomment.html

Death of the guy responsible for radioactivity in the Irish Sea.

John Dunster died in April, but the nuclear establishment was silent** on his creation of the most highly radioactive sea.

What a gaff when he disclosed at a 1958 United Nations conference in Geneva that the Windscale plant had pumped vast amounts of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea over the previous six years.

"The sea has always been regarded by coastal and seafaring peoples as the ideal place for dumping their waste and this is, of course, a very reasonable and proper attitude.
"Almost everything put into the sea is either diluted...or broken down...or stored harmlessly on the seabed. Most of the objects which ultimately do find their way to the shore are harmless and a considerable source of pleasure to children.
"The intention has been to discharge fairly substantial amounts of radioactivity as part of an organised and deliberate scientific experiment...the aims of this experiment would have been defeated if the level of radioactivity discharged had been kept to a minimum."

For a fuller "anti-obituary", see the website of independent journalist Rob Edwards, Dunster dies, but his radiation experiment lives on. This concludes nicely with:

Windscale has discharged far more radioactive pollution in the sea than any other nuclear plant, and its distinct isotopic signal can be detected in oceans across the globe. The plutonium it has deposited in the silt at the bottom of the Irish Sea is gradually coming ashore, and will keep doing so for decades. The "deliberate scientific experiment", in other words, is not over. And we are all still the guinea pigs.

** establishment obituaries at
www.irpa.net/index.php
www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/dunster_obituary.htm

Crab fishing season 'catastrophic'

Steve Downes - Eastern Daily Press - 30th May 2006

The future of East Anglia's crab fishing industry was in doubt last night as fishermen counted the cost of another "catastrophic" season.
Some are thinking about quitting the boats because the number of crabs caught has plunged to what could be an all-time low. The third successive poor season also casts a shadow over one of the region's most famous brands and exports - the Cromer crab. If the situation does not improve, there are fears the shellfish could become a rare - and increasingly pricey - delicacy.

The fall-off in brown crab numbers is a mystery, with a number of possible factors suggested, including:

global warming changing the crabs' breeding patterns
overfishing, with crabs being caught at an increasing number of towns up the coast of England
an increase in the numbers of velvet crabs, which may be forcing the brown crabs out.

John Davies, from Cromer, who has been going to sea for crabs since he was a child, said: "It's desperate. It's very, very poor at the moment. I've been fishing all my life, and it's totally out of synch. The weather and the climate may have a fair bit to do with it. "We are catching some crabs with eggs on, which is wrong at this time of year. "Overfishing has also been mentioned because in the last 10-20 years the amount of boats putting out for crabs up the coast has gone through the roof. "They're catching egg-laden females. We are told our crabs move north to spawn, then the eggs come down by the current to north Norfolk, where they hatch. Has the breeding circle been broken? "If this carries on, you will see less and less boats working in this area. There will always be a demand for Cromer crabs, but who knows what will happen in the future."

Rob Brownsell, who fishes from East Runton and is at least the fifth generation of the family who put to sea for a living, said: "This is the third consecutive poor fishing season. "I don't think anybody going to sea can remember a season as poor as this. It's quite catastrophic.
"We're working for the sake of working. I don't think anybody's earning any money. We're just about covering expenses and that's it." He added: "If it carries on like it is, Cromer crab will become a rare species. The vast majority of the boats have gone single-handed. They've cut out a wage by getting rid of a worker. "It's a very bleak future. I wouldn't have to have much of a job to earn more money than I'm earning. It wouldn't surprise me if the industry disappeared."

Cromer Crab Company, which takes many of the shellfish caught in north Norfolk and sells them on, is trying to boost the fishermen's income by charging more to its two main outlets - Marks and Spencer and Waitrose. The firm has already increased the amount it pays to the fishermen by 15pc. Nick Samujlik, raw materials buyer, said: "What we are looking to do is try to help the fishermen by increasing the price paid to them and passing that on to the retailers. "We supply Marks and Spencer and Waitrose. We've got the M&S buyer here next week, and we are going to try to pass the increased costs on." He added: "We do have fears for the Cromer crab. Some of the older fishermen have never seen it so bad. It has hit rock bottom." If the firm is unsuccessful, there is a danger that M&S and Waitrose could look elsewhere for their crab supplies - further driving down fishermen's income.

The saga of the dwindling crab stocks is being looked into by Eastern Sea Fisheries, which sought to play down the problem. Matthew Mander, clerk and chief fishery officer, said: "We've certainly recorded lower than expected catches this spring, but at the moment it's too difficult to ascertain how much effect this colder than average winter has had. "There are other aspects. We don't know the influence of the levels of velvet crabs on the brown crabs. "It's a little bit early to indicate anything more than a trend because a lot of other fisheries are also slow because of the cold winter. "We are monitoring it to see if it continues. If it does, it would be worrying."

Ivan Large, chairman of North Norfolk Fishing Society and Wells and District Inshore Fishermen's Association, also attempted to put the issue in perspective. He said: "There isn't many crabs this year, but we do get times like this. I hope it will pick up. "There are one or two people who are thinking of giving up. It's worrying, there's no doubt about it. People put a lot of money into it."

Pat Gowen's response to the EDP article

'Crab fishing season catastrophic' (EDP 30th May 2006) suggests a number of possible reasons for the demise of the regions crabs stocks, but the greatest threat to the future of the crab industry was voiced at a meeting held at Skegness over fifteen years ago. This packed meeting of informed marine biologists, coastal environmentalists, biologists and fishermen with the authorities was called to oppose the provision of a licence to dredge the Race Bank for aggregate. It is here where the crab overwinter and spawn.
Opposition also came from the MAFF Burnham-on-Crouch Fisheries Laboratory. (see www.bmapa.org/pdf/sandand.pdf )
Despite the consolidated and well founded warnings given, exploitational commerce won the day and a licence to dredge for sand and gravel was provided, with the expected results of this now upon us. We are now seeing the consequences of strip mining the seabed, as not only crab, but shrimp, fish and many parts of the interdependent marine eco-system are suffering severe loss. It is not only the coastline and housing being so damaged, but the and tourist and fishing industries too.

Battle against the waves goes on

East Anglian Daily Times - 2nd May 2006

Adam Burrows, site manager for the National Nature Reserve at Banacre, looks at the damage at Covehithe

MORE than 3ft of the East Anglian coast is being lost to the sea every year - and in some stretches land is disappearing at an even faster rate, it has been claimed. In heavy storms as much as 30ft of the county's landscape can be washed away and, with global warming and sea level rise, experts predict the impact will only increase further. Parts of Suffolk's Heritage Coast have changed dramatically over the last 100 years, with great loss of land and homes.

Properties have had to be demolished at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, before they toppled over the cliff edge, and East Lane, in Bawdsey, has changed beyond all recognition.

Coastal erosion at Covehithe

The agency monitors changes closely and has to recommend whether sea defences are strengthened or nature is allowed to take its course. "Suffolk's coastline is changing all the time and always has done. While there are locations where land is being lost there are other stretches of coast, such as at Kessingland, near Lowestoft, where beach levels are increasing," said a spokesman.

Adam Burrows, site manager for the National Nature Reserve (NNR) at Benacre, said the coastline at Covehithe continued to erode. "The worst year since the turn of the century was 2003 when the defences gave way at Easton Valley and there was a lot of flooding," he said. Mr Burrows, who has worked locally since 1999, said the public footpath along the cliff edge at Covehithe had now disappeared into the sea. There was no immediate threat to the NNR or the homes clustered around the ruins of Covehithe Church, he said. Mr Burrows said he was unaware that a sea defence scheme had ever been put forward for Covehithe.

Material eroded from Benacre, Covehithe and Easton replenished beaches further south. At East Lane, Bawdsey, near Woodbridge, the Environment Agency is trying to maintain sea defences at their present level and is using large rocks to protect the crumbling coastline. But John Fell-Clark, owner of the Napoleonic Martello tower W, described the current situation as "very dicey" and said the coastal erosion at this point had sped up dramatically over the last five years. "The erosion on the unprotected shoreline is far more than one metre a year; hugely more. In one year we had more than 14 metres washed away," he said. "To say it is only one metre is nonsense; they must be averaging it out over 1,000 miles. It is patently far more than that in certain places.
"In terms of increased erosion, it has vastly increased on the unprotected south flank where bits drop off weekly. "The erosion of the section between East Lane itself and the Martello Tower, that's very badly eroding behind the original rocks that were put in seven years ago as the original, temporary works as an emergency. "The sea is coming in behind those rocks now and eroding the dyke behind them, which weakens our northern flank."

The Environment Agency spokesman said officials would be returning to East Lane shortly to study the situation and see if more work needed to be done.
But he added that because any coastal protection scheme has to compete for Government funding, major projects tended to take place at coastal towns.

In Essex, erosion at the historic Naze cliffs in Walton has been a concern for many years and a fundraising campaign is underway to pay for more defences.
David Gager, chairman of the Naze Protection Society, said: "At the moment we are losing about two metres per year. "The defences stop just before the Naze Tower which is a problem, if something isn't done it will be affected in the next few years, so the current plan is to extend the current defences along about 200 metres which will safeguard the future of the tower." In April 2005, 20 square metres of cliff was lost to the sea and half an acre went during a single storm in January 2001, said Mr Gager.

It is in the more rural areas where agricultural land and small coastal hamlets are at much greater risk from the sea.

People whose homes are lost because of coastal erosion receive no compensation from the Government and they are charged an average of £3,000 to have their property demolished before it becomes a danger by falling over cliffs to the beach below. When the coastal erosion involves crumbling cliffs it is no longer the responsibility of the Environment Agency but comes under the control of the local authority.

People living close to the coast, landowners, and politicians have been calling for one organisation to have overall control but the Government has yet to announce any changes in the way our sea defences are handled.

John Gummer, president of Suffolk Coast Against Retreat (SCAR) and Conservative MP for Suffolk Coastal, said: "One of the reasons coastal erosion is so severe is that not enough is being done about it. "We cannot deal with it unless we protect the coast, and that is why the Environment Agency is wrong. "If we do not protect the coast it will get worse and worse. Towns and villages are threatened. "The current policy of neglect, dressed up as managed retreat, is not acceptable."

East Anglia Faces a Wave of Destruction

Cornerstone considers the threat of coastal erosion to historic buildings in Norfolk and Suffolk

Residents along the Norfolk and Suffolk coast are living on the brink of uncertainty. Not only are their homes threatened by coastal erosion, but - in a cruel twist to this all too literal cliffhanger - after months of consultation they are still unsure whether any steps at all will be taken to protect their towns and villages. The spring edition of Cornerstone, the magazine of SPAB (The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings) weighs up the threat posed to thousands of acres of land and many historic buildings along the battered East Anglian seaboard.

The Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline is one of the first in the country to be revised and radically altered. If adopted, the new plan will mark a fundamental change in the practice of UK coastal management, which will re-shape Britain. The revised SMP places stronger emphasis on letting nature take its course, largely restricting long-term investment in the region's sea defences to the protection of major historic towns and ports. Elsewhere a strategy of "managed realignment" is envisaged where old sea defences will be dismantled or abandoned and the shoreline allowed to retreat to a predetermined level.

The plan acknowledges that this will result in the devastation of a number or towns and villages. The implications for heritage are acute - numerous historic buildings will be lost along with sites of archaeological and historic importance including churches, burial sites, manor houses and notable buildings designed by Edwin Lutyens and early SPAB architect Detmar Blow.

Homes are also threatened. The results of the public consultation for the SMP were due out in October last year, but, apparently, have been delayed due to the overwhelming negative response. Cornerstone considers this difficult and emotive issue conceding it almost certain that that over the next century historic buildings will be lost forever to sea.

In East Anglia buildings have always been cast to the waves. The most celebrated victim was medieval Dunwich, once a prosperous port with a population of over 2,000, several parishes and a rare round Knights Templar church. In the spring Cornerstone, Stuart Bacon, director of Suffolk Underwater Studies looks at the history of this sunken treasure and describes what has been discovered through underwater exploration.

Continuing the East Anglian theme and delving deeper into the unknown, the haunting works of SPAB member M.R. James are considered by Gareth Hughes, chairman of the SPAB Mills Section and Conservation Officer at Broadland District Council. Many of James' chilling antiquarian ghost stories are set in the region.

Considering he was variously a Fellow of the Royal Society of Antiquaries, Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum and Provost of Kings College Cambridge, it's not surprising that a man who approached history with such erudition, should be just as convincing in fiction - perhaps too convincing? The legend James invented in A Warning To The Curious of three Saxon crowns buried on the East Anglian Coast to ward off invaders is now repeated in guidebooks!

Angles rather than Saxons played a central role in SPAB's annual volunteer Working Party at Holy Trinity Church, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire last summer. Cornerstone reflects on the success of the week designed to provide a practical care and assistance to a building in need and on the surprising and significant archaeological finds that came to light in the churchyard, including unique pagan Angle burials.

"Anti-scrape" was the Victorian nickname for the SPAB, encapsulating much of what the Society stood for. At the time the fashion for stripping ancient plaster from the interior and exterior of churches was at its height. Today fierce arguments arise over whether or not the lime coating should be put back. Because this can dramatically change the familiar weathered look of a building it can be hugely unpopular. In this issue of Cornerstone two highly respected SPAB members make eloquent cases for and against.

Elsewhere Cornerstone reports on plans to save novelist Elizabeth Gaskell's house in Manchester — a classical gem left shamefully to rot and decay. The magazine also turns its attention to buildings overseas with Clementine Cecil's account of the steady eradication of Moscow's 20th century architectural past and BBC Central Asia correspondent, Ian McWilliam's, insight into the monumental Soviet remodellling of Tashkent capital of Uzbekistan.

Packed as usual with news, views, opinions reviews and reports from the conservation sector, the spring 2006 edition of Cornerstone, the biggest ever, is essential reading for anyone interested in architecture and heritage.

For further information contact Kate Griffin, SPAB press officer: 0207-456 0905 kate@spab.org.uk

'Catastrophe' warning on sea defences by RICHARD BATSON, EDP 22nd April '06

Abandoning Norfolk's seas defences could result in a coastal catastrophe in the next five years, a climate expert has warned.

The chilling reminder of the consequences of doing nothing was outlined by Prof Tim O'Riordan at a public meeting at Cromer. He stressed that the resort's seawalls were just as much at risk as rural villages under a new shoreline management plan which advocates "managed retreat" along most of the county's coast.

Last night, coastal defence officials and campaigners also pressed for government action to "buy time" for seaside communities in the front line of the policy.

Prof O'Riordan is based at UEA's climate research centre and is now doing consultancy work looking at ways coastal villages can cope with losing their defences.

He told the annual town meeting at Cromer: "If the government does nothing about this coast, as sure as eggs are eggs there will be a catastrophe within five years that will cost much more money to put right than the money that they think they are saving."
The professor said the government's coastal defence department was "nonplussed" by the degree of public concern over the shoreline plan. He urged the government to listen, or face losing money and losing support from a public whose lives and livelihoods would be seriously affected by the plan. Continued investment in defences was essential, including seawall repairs to a "deeply unstable system" at Cromer, where the cost of keeping the sea at bay would continue to grow.

Urgent repairs were needed this autumn to the walls near the pier, and to two groynes, costing around £70,000 because of the failure of a major scheme to win government funding under the current coastal defence policy, said North Norfolk District Council's head of property Peter Frew. He agreed that spending was needed to "buy time" and that the authorities could not walk away from sea defences.
"We have to recognise that this is a naturally retreating coast, but that we should look at how it affects people's homes, lives and livelihoods before we look at managed retreat," he said.

Fears for disappearing beach

Two feet from disaster Evening Star 15th April 2006

That's Felixstowe promenade today as the sea continues to sweep away the beach at the southern end of the resort. Twenty-five years ago, people could step off the prom straight onto the beach. Today there is more than a seven feet drop from the walkway to the sand below. Tens of thousands of tonnes of shingle and sand have gone. And today there is a blunt warning from Suffolk Coastal Council that the promenade could have to be closed if the government does not step in to offer financial help.

Photograph showing subsidence of the promenade due to underminement following beach draw down.

If the beach drops just two feet more - the depth of the prom's foundations are 9ft 3in - the waves will undermine the prom. They will suck out the material beneath its concrete frontage and then the prom will collapse.

Suffolk Coastal council, which is trying to persuade government officials to give £5 million towards new sea defences, believes this could happen and that would mean a stretch of prom having to be closed off. That could also mean the Shore Break café, suspended perilously above the beach, would be put out of action. Without money, there is little the council can do in the meantime as they wait for the government grant, which could be a year away.

Beach café about to be demolished

Contractors have taken bits of broken groynes - smashed by the waves into pieces and left strewn across the shore - and piled them up to make artificial breakwaters. But because of the enormous size of the piles and the drop from the prom it has made the beach unusable.

Coastal campaigner Norman Thompson said he believed the erosion was "progressive and unstoppable" - and is convinced material from the beaches is being swept into the shipping channel. He also believes enormous excavations for aggregates off the coast is causing problems.

Suffolk Coastal officials have met with officers from Defra to discuss the situation and have submitted a case for Felixstowe being treated as a special case. If Defra will give the grant, work could take place this summer.

SUFFOLK Coastal has held a meeting with Defra and the Environment Agency, which was described as "very constructive" by deputy council leader Andy Smith. He said: "It is clear that they understand the problems facing us in Felixstowe, that the sea wall is showing clear signs of distress and that the beach is particularly low. "Defra officers recognise that this Council has taken a lot of previous action to maintain beach levels and that we may need to take further urgent measure."

He said the department was considering allowing the council to do the first phase of work this year and completing it next year. "We are hopeful that will prevent flooding that could otherwise affect over 1,600 homes, businesses and the Port of Felixstowe," added Mr Smith.

Local MP John Gummer - himself a former environment secretary - has added his voice to the call for action by lobbying Margaret Beckett.

Meanwhile council engineers have been making regular inspections - usually weekly, although they have recently been daily, and immediately after any storms or tide surges.

Mr Smith said: "We have written to the Government urging it to treat our scheme on its merits and recognise that it is an urgent special case."
Mr Smith said that since then the state of the sea defences had further deteriorated and there was a major risk that they could not withstand a serious storm without serious damage. "Anyone visiting the beach can see for themselves that things are indeed getting worse and that something must be done this year. "Our report also warned that if the new works do not proceed, the Council will have to consider whether conditions become so hazardous to the public that the beach or promenade must be closed which could be catastrophic to the town and the district. It also warned of the national impact of a closure of the Port as a result of tidal flooding."

More reactions to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

From the 'Eastern Daily Press' of April 29 2006 comes this latest story on the 'Managed Retreat' Plan not to defend the majority of our coastline and not to reimburse those who lose their livelihood or housing, despite the consultation that produced over 2,500 objectors.

'Coastal residents left in limbo' by Steve Downs Eastern Daily Press 29th April 2006

Thousands of people on the Norfolk and Suffolk coast were in limbo last night, as another political row blew up. Consultants were accused of "bizarre" behaviour after their response to 2,500 objections to a plan to stop defending much of the coastline was ignored. Critics said the long-awaited report by Halcrow about public consultation on the draft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) did not address the issues of compensation and social justice for those whose homes could be washed away. Now officers are penning a "foreword" to the document.

Last night North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said he was "flabbergasted" by Halcrow's response, a year after the public consultation closed.
He said: "What planet are they on? To come back after reading so many objections and still miss the fundamental issue of social justice seems remarkable."

Environment minister Elliot Morley has agreed to meet a delegation from north Norfolk in London on May 17, including Mr Lamb, coastal campaigner Malcolm Kerby and deputy council leader Clive Stockton.

Communities are under threat if the draft plan's "managed retreat" policy is adopted - including Overstrand, Mundesley, Happisburgh, Winterton and Scratby.

Halcrow was commissioned to carry out the latest work as part of an attempt to adopt the SMP, which covers the coast from Kelling to Lowestoft. The draft plan advocates letting all parts of the coast go except the main towns - the current plan proposes defending the whole coast. It has been put together by a group of organisations, comprising North Norfolk District Council, Yarmouth Borough Council, Waveney District Council, English Nature, the Environment Agency and Great Yarmouth Port Authority.

The group received Halcrow's response to the public consultation a few weeks ago, and ruled that it was "unsatisfactory".

Mr Stockton said: "The SMP doesn't address people. The Halcrow report has ignored the fact that there were 2,500 objections.
"It effectively dismissed them as irrelevant. But this is a process that could condemn huge numbers of people to a watery end.
"We need to attach another document to the SMP, which addresses the consequences for real people on the coastline."

Mr Kerby said: "We are in limbo. All the time this new SMP is held at bay, the old policy stands. "People deserve some answers."

The Marine Bill consultation document has now been published

It is available in the consultation section of the Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marinebill/index.htm

The closing date for responses is Friday 23rd June 2006.
If you require a hard copy of the document, please contact DEFRA by Email at: MarineLegislationDivision@defra.gsi.gov.uk

MARINET will be seeking the views of groups to its proposed response prior to the June deadline.

Bill Rigby

Safety railings put up on beach prom

Suffolk Evening Star - 23rd March 2006

RAILINGS are today in place on Felixstowe seafront to stop people falling off the prom onto the beach and being injured on dangerous concrete below. The urgent safety measure was put in place following a series of high tides, which have washed away thousands of tonnes of sand and shingle - leaving an eight feet drop to the shore.

Suzanne Bloomfield of the Shore Break Café on Felixstowe seafront where fencing has been put up to stop people falling onto the broken pieces of concrete that have been left exposed by erosion.

Contractors have been called in to carry out emergency work and have been moving huge chunks of broken breakwaters to create makeshift groynes to try to stop the severe erosion and encourage shingle back on to the beach. Suffolk Coastal and the Environment Agency want to carry out £10 million worth of sea defence work along the stretch of beach but the government has so far refused to fund the project.

Felixstowe sector manager for HM Coastguard, Jo Arlow said: "We spoke to the council and stressed how dangerous we thought it could now be along that part of the prom. "The erosion has got very bad indeed and a large area of beach has dropped very steeply. "If someone fell off the beach here they could end up injuring themselves quite seriously because it's several feet down and there is lots of sharp concrete about."

Large broken bits of concrete, some parts of groynes and some believed to be old war defences, sit on the beach. Council engineers said if the current low beach levels continue parts of the prom are at severe risk of at least partial collapse, most likely around the Shore Break café in Sea Road, where 100m of railings have now been put in place on the prom to protect the public.

A spokesman said: "The council will also arrange for white lining and signing to advise people of the drop along the southern section of the promenade where beach levels are low. "This will be similar to existing lining outside the Fludyers Arms Public House in Undercliff Road East."

Are you worried about the risk of flooding? Write to Your Letters, Evening Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN, or e-mail EveningStarLetters@eveningstar.co.uk

FELIXSTOWE'S Shore Break Café hovers precariously several feet over the beach and sea at high tide - a building which used to rest on the sand.

The original foundations, old oil drums filled with concrete, now lie scattered on the beach or hang suspended in the air below the building. These have had to be replaced with four metre deep steel pipes because of the erosion, but even this piling is now being threatened every day by the relentless onslaught of the waves attacking a weak spot and is now only two metres deep. The café, which was built in the 1980s, has survived storms and a fire over the years, now hangs around 12ft over the beach. Alongside beaches are also low, groynes have been knocked over and smashed and the council has brought in contractors to try to create breakwaters from the broken bits.

The building is owned by Andy Mexome and the café run by Steve Bloomfield. The café is still open for business. "I do feel safe although the place really does shake and we've had the occasional person screaming. I'm hoping a disaster won't happen any time soon," said Mr Bloomfield.

Plea to protect wildlife on our 'dying seabeds' - Green groups say government's marine bill will put fishing and oil before conservation

Robin McKie & Gaby Hinsliff, March 26th '06, 'The Observer'

Ministers will face a concerted attack from green groups this week when the government announces a marine bill which critics say 'puts the environment last'. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will launch its bid to save Britain's seas from dying of neglect, announcing it is to begin consultations over the bill which will seek to replace the bewildering array of different laws that control the oil wells, fishing and endangered species round our coasts.

A total of 36 acts currently control oil drilling, fishing and extraction of building materials from the seabed. Under the government's plans a single legislative body will replace most of these.
Environmental groups say endangered fish, sea plants and cold-water corals are still going to be treated as subsidiary problems when questions of oil drilling, installation of off-shore windfarms and fishing are being considered.

'We have been negotiating with the civil servants for six years about this bill,' said Joan Edwards of the Wildlife Trusts organisation. 'Now the government has revealed its plans and there is only passing reference to protecting marine life.'

Green groups say the seabed around Britain is now being turned into featureless deserts of sand and mud. Intense forms of fishing are ripping up the sea floor. In the Channel, rare beds of sunset corals and sea fan shellfish are being destroyed at an alarming rate. Similarly, basking sharks and seahorses are being killed off. We are going to lose all these precious types of marine wildlife,' added Edwards.
The Wildlife Trusts, in common with other green groups, are pressing for the setting up of protected seabed zones, the equivalent of Sites of Special Scientific Interest on land protected under environment legislation. At present there is no mention of them in the government's plans.

'The problem is that existing legislation just has not worked,' said Janet Brown of the World Wildlife Fund. She cited the example of Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland which once possessed vast colonies of horse mussels. Then fishermen began intense dredging of the lough which destroyed the mussel beds. Although it was designated a marine reserve, the fishing went on and the horse mussels have since been destroyed.

'Shipping, oil drilling, aggregate mining - we get 20 per cent of our sand for cement from the seabed - and windfarms always get priority over marine life,' said Melissa Moore, of the Marine Conservation Society. 'We are very nervous that is not going to change very much.'

The row over the marine bill consultation comes as the government prepares this week to unveil its plans to reduce the environmental damage done by politicians during trips abroad. From next weekend - too late to cover the Prime Minister's week-long trip to Brussels, Australia, New Zealand and the Far East - all official flights will be subject to 'carbon offsetting'.

For every flight, the government will calculate how much carbon dioxide has been emitted and pay it off with an equivalent amount of tree planting, funding for low-energy projects in developing countries, or installing low-energy lightbulbs or solar heaters. The move follows a rather less successful initiative of offering ministers hybrid electric cars. While some did opt for the eco-friendly Toyota Prius, the Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, was among those plumping for a rather less green Jaguar.
Beckett will this week publish the government's long-awaited climate change review, due to show how Britain can meet targets to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. It will argue that saving the planet could also help individuals save money, with the extension of schemes offering £100 off council tax to people prepared to put cavity wall insulation into their homes.

However, with the government unable to agree targets for reducing emissions from business, green groups are warning that the review could be a missed opportunity to make a genuine difference.

£30M to stop Ventnor slipping away

By Richard Wright, Isle of Wight County Press 24th March '06

Ventnor seafront
It will cost £30 million to protect Ventnor from the increased risk of landslip caused by global warming, a study has concluded. The study highlights the need for measures to be taken as soon as possible to cope with predictions of a sea level rise of up to half a metre and a winter rainfall increase of nearly 30 per cent by 2080.

Engineering consultant Halcrow recommends monitoring slope conditions and rates of damage to infrastructure to identify any increases in landslide activity. Halcrow is preparing preliminary designs for slope stabilisation, involving deep groundwater drainage to improve stability in the most affected areas. In the meantime Halcrow recommends the IW Council should either discourage developers from building in high-risk areas or ensure robust design withstands a degree of movement. Halcrow's project director, Roger Moore, said: "The ground investigations, civil engineering measures, including coastal protection and drainage improvements, as well as the benefits arising from the landslide management strategy adopted by the council since 1992, have contributed to a reduction in the impact of ground movement. "However, climate change predictions are concerns that must be addressed. "If these predictions are correct there will be an increasing risk of landsliding unless further measures are taken to control ground instability promoted by wave erosion, increased rainfall and groundwater levels."We are now, in conjunction with the IW Council, evaluating options for stabilisation and improved management of the landslides."

A risk assessment for central Ventnor, supported by ground investigations comprising a line of deep boreholes through the town, has been completed. It is the first detailed evaluation of the causes, likelihood and future consequences of coastal landsliding.

Halcrow said it demonstrated the potential benefits of major slope stabilisation in an area where 50 homes and several hotels and businesses had already been lost and where the annual costs of landslide were estimated at £3 million.
IW Council coastal manager Robin McInnes said: "Initially, we are looking for funding for a £1 million pumping scheme and we have had very constructive talks with the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs over deep drainage for the town, which could cost in the region of £30 million. "There is a strong economic case for carrying out a scheme sooner rather that later before we reach a critical situation. "Despite the blip of recent dry winters the rainfall trend since records began in the town in 1837 has been upwards and the prediction is for much more rapid increase as global warming takes hold. "Workshops will be staged for town and IW Council members in the spring and a display mounted in the Coastal Visitors Centre in the town."

Waves pound Suffolk's sea defences

Evening Star, Ipswich - 27th February 2006

This dramatic scene illustrates the desperate need to improve Suffolk's sea defences as the county's coastline battles against the forces of nature. Today, the Felixstowe businessman who owns this building told of his fears for the sea-front cafe after it was lashed by huge waves.

When the Shore Break Café was built 15 years ago it was three steps above beach-level, but coastal erosion has now increased that distance dramatically. At the weekend it was battered by high tides of 10ft 9in (3.32m) combined with strong winds, causing the wooden structure to vibrate as waves crashed over its roof. Things were so bad on Saturday that the café was forced to close as water cascaded down, forcing vast swathes of pebbles off the beach on to the concrete promenade and into huts facing the onslaught.

The building's owner, Andy Mexome, said: "It was first built on cans filled with concrete, but we changed it so it's now standing on steel pipes which go into the beach. "When these were put in they reached to four metres (13ft 1in) below the level of the beach but now they are only two metres (6ft 6in) below. If erosion continues at this rate the structures which are holding us up won't be there any more and it will be swept away."

The café's pounding could get even worse with predicted high tides of 4.04metres on Wednesday lunchtime. Its owner, Steve Bloomfield, said: "I do feel safe although the place really does shake and we've had the occasional person screaming. I'm hoping that a disaster won't happen any time soon."

Mr Mexome said he hoped Suffolk Costal District Council would implement its plans to raise the level of the beach and added: "We pay a licence to be on the beach but there is less and less beach all the time." Although council engineers have said that if the current low beach levels continue parts of Felixstowe's sea wall are at severe risk of at least partial collapse there may not be the money available to tackle to problem. The council is desperately hoping to spend £10million to avoid a flooding disaster but Whitehall officials have rejected its plea for a grant.

Only last week Andy Smith, deputy leader of the council, said: "The current defences are derelict and we were ready to replace them this May. Government guidelines and announcements over a long period had clearly indicated funding would be available. "However, in December the government announced its budgets were fully committed so it could not fund any new schemes in 2006/07."

What do you think should be done about the threat of coastal erosion? Write to Your Letters, Evening Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN or send us an e-mail to eveningstarletters@eveningstar.co.uk

Coastal erosion refers to the loss of landmass into the sea due to waves, winds and tides, or human actions. Erosion has seen a massive loss of land from Bawdsey where fears have been raised over the speed of the decline. Erosion may cause long-term losses or just temporary redistribution of costal sediments.
The Suffolk town of Dunwich which was a thriving community in the middle ages is now completely underwater due to coastal erosion.
Coastal defence methods designed to prevent erosion include groynes, sea walls, revetments and gabions.

Cumbria, Suffolk, Devon, Somerset and Durham chosen for Coastal Access study

Tuesday 21st February 2006 - BYM News www.bymnews.com/new/content/view/25110/82/

Four stretches of English coastline, from Durham in the north-east to Devon in the south-west, have been chosen as locations for a project to look at options to improve the way people can access and enjoy the English coastline, Landscape Minister Jim Knight announced today. Mr Knight said that the study will explore ways to improve opportunities to visit and enjoy coastal areas. "Improving access to our wonderful coastline is something the Government has wanted to do for a long time, and this work is an important step forward," he said. "As well as access, we are also looking at the potential to improve people's opportunities to understand and appreciate the natural and historic environment that is such a fundamental part of our nation's heritage. "We need to look carefully at potential ways to improve access to the coast in ways that will really benefit people and nature, and help people to get the most out of the coast."

The four selected for the project are the Southern Cumbrian coast and Morecambe Bay, the Suffolk coast, the North Devon, Exmoor and West Somerset coast and the County Durham and Hartlepool coast. The study will also explore ways in which benefits for the natural environment could be gained, whilst ensuring that the negative effects of improved access on the landscape and wildlife are minimised.

The Natural England partnership, comprising the Countryside Agency, English Nature, and the Rural Development Service, will undertake fact-finding work on the coastal situation and the types of access that would be most valuable to people. These areas represent the diverse conditions around England's coast. The studies will look at the different types of coastline (for example cliffs, dunes and areas of coastal erosion and accretion), areas with good or less good existing access provision, and other issues such as tourism levels and proximity to large population centres.

The Natural England partnership will report in early summer, and Defra will issue a public consultation paper on the subject in the autumn that will help inform a comprehensive coastal access policy.

Editors note:

1. The Government's Rural Manifesto 2005 states that improving access to coastal areas will be an early priority for the Labour third term. Implementing the commitment to improve access to the coast will be a flagship project for Natural England following its formal creation in October 2006. It will take an integrated approach to ensure delivery of access, landscape and wildlife benefits.

2. Meetings will be held in each area with local stakeholders, including local authorities, landowners, walkers, those involved in nature conservation, and members of local access forums and coastal projects. These meetings will provide more information on the overall project and the work to be carried out in each of the locations, but will also seek local advice and knowledge on issues surrounding access to these particular stretches of the coast. The exploratory work will then take place during March and April.

3. The Natural England partnership will report to Defra on the outcomes of the fact finding and study area work in May. The report will form the basis for a public consultation which will be issued in October 2006.

4. England has about 4000km of coastline, excluding estuaries and offshore islands.

'No more dredging' - Eastern Daily Press - 6th March 2006

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is warned today - Don't mess with Norfolk's coastline.

As the consultation period ends on controversial dredging proposals, he is being left in no doubt about the strength of feeling as he decides whether to extend a licence to mine sediment off Yarmouth by five years.

While Mr Prescott ruled earlier that public notices did not need to be placed, as reported in the EDP last month, objections have come in thick and fast from local authorities, pressure groups and 239 residents of Scratby. Each is worried that an extension to dredge Area 202, 7km off the coast of Yarmouth and the closest patch to the shore, will affect the already badly-eroded coastline.

They say that by the contractors' own admission dredging there in the last three years alone has lowered the seabed by 5m and that is reason enough to call a halt until the full effects are known.

Jim Bratton, of Scratby Coastal Erosion Group, said the objections of 239 villagers were based on the serious loss of sand from Scratby beach in recent years.

He said: "The dramatic loss of beach here and at other locations around the Norfolk coast while millions of tons of sand and gravel are removed from the seabed is prompting serious calls for dredging to be halted while a totally independent investigation is carried out."

Malcolm Kerby, of Happisburgh-based Coastal Concern Action Group, has written to Mr Prescott, via Bath-based consultants Marine Ecological Systems, demanding dredging be halted immediately. He said: "I firmly believe a moratorium should be placed on marine aggregate dredging with immediate effect."

Pat Gowen, former UEA marine biologist and co-ordinator of the Norfolk anti-dredging North Sea Action Group, says granting the extension would be "exceedingly myopic"."Our members are extremely concerned at the increasingly rapid erosion of our beaches, dunes and soft sand cliffs since the commencement of aggregate dredging offshore," he says in his letter of objection.

Yarmouth Borough Council and Norfolk County Council have also registered objections.

But campaigners are not holding their breath about the Southampton-based Hanson Aggregate Marine proposals just yet. Mr Prescott's department is still to make a decision on the last application to come before it, on the adjoining area 401/2, for which public consultation ended last spring.

Plea to protect wildlife on our 'dying seabeds' - Green groups say government's marine bill will put fishing and oil before conservation

Robin McKie & Gaby Hinsliff, March 26th '06, 'The Observer'

However, with the government unable to agree targets for reducing emissions from business, green groups are warning that the review could be a missed opportunity to make a genuine difference.

Opposition to Dredging Area 401/2

Tony Wright, MP for Great Yarmouth, reports that he has joined the All Party Parliamentary Group on Coastal and Marine Issues to raise awareness of offshore aggregate dredging and coastal erosion.

He has written to Matthew Louis, Planning Directorate, Minerals and Waste Planning for the ODPM to formally object to Hanson's application to dredge Area 401/2 off Great Yarmouth and has also written to Baroness Andrews, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the ODPM who has overall responsibility for this issue.

There have been over 300 objections to this licence application including the Councils. The decision is imminent!

'Dredging contract extension opposed'

Tom Smithard, Eastern Daily Press, 24th February '06

Pressure yesterday mounted on the Government to refuse an extension to a controversial dredging contract after the Norfolk council most affected came out against it.

Hanson Aggregates Marine is applying to extend by five years its licence to dredge a 3½ sq km area which is 7km off the Yarmouth coast. It has submitted an environmental report to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which will make the decision, stating that continuing to mine the seabed for sand and aggregate is "no cause for concern".

But the report let slip that in parts of the heavily-dredged patch, the closest of any to the Norfolk shoreline, the seabed has been lowered by five metres. Despite no conclusive reports showing dredging causes damage to Norfolk's already erosion-hit coastline, campaigners have seized upon the five-metre claim as proof that dredging should be halted.

On Wednesday night Yarmouth councillors voted unanimously to oppose the extension. Leader of the council Barry Coleman said: "All the parish councils I've been to recently have been against any extension to the licence. "We've always opposed this and will continue to do so."

Portfolio holder for development Barry Stone said: "As always, we're opposed to the dredging because there is little known yet about its effects on erosion." And Jim Shrimplin, portfolio holder for the environment, said: "We've previously been told dredging the seabed is a matter of inches. "Now it's a matter of metres - the depth of this room. There are already significant fears about dredging and this makes it worse."

Focus switches to Norfolk County Council today, which is set to come out in opposition to the plans. A meeting of the planning (regulatory) committee will hear a report from director of planning Nick Johnson that proposes the council object to Hanson's plans. He will state this is "on the basis of the uncertainty over the future environmental impacts associated with such operations" and that this position "will be maintained until such time as the effects of dredging are understood".

A series of pressure groups are opposing the proposal, including the Happisburgh-based Coastal Concern Action Group and North Carolina-based Sustainable Shorelines.

Consultation for the proposal runs out on March 6, and the Government will make a decision soon after.

Not quite an admission?

From the columns of our 'Eastern Daily Press' of 20th February 2006 comes the following report.

Dredging lowers seabed by 5m - Tom Smithard - EDP 20th February 2006

Dredging a large area off the Norfolk coast has lowered the seabed by five metres in the last few years, a new report has revealed. Hanson Aggregates Marine, the company responsible, said this is "no cause for concern" but coastal campaigners said last night the figures left them "speechless".

The EDP has previously reported that Hanson is seeking to extend its licence for dredging area 202, a 3 sq km patch of seabed 7km off the Yarmouth coast.

Southampton-based Hanson has been dredging the patch for 20 years, and won a new licence in 2001 to mine 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from it between then and the end of last year. Between 2003 and 2004 the seabed had been lowered by 3m - and by 2005 that had increased to 5m in actively-dredged zones, despite the company only extracting 0.9 million tonnes during the five years.

Now Hanson is asking for a five-year extension in which they want to complete their 2.5 million tonne allocation, taking a maximum of 500,000 tonnes a year. To help win the extension from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), the company commissioned a detailed environmental statement. It reads: "The overall lowering is concluded to be part of the natural evolution of this part of the seabed. Since no adverse changes between 1999 and 2005 have been found there is no cause for concern, from the viewpoint of coastal impacts, related to the proposed future dredging."

Last night Malcolm Kerby, of the Coastal Concern Action Group, said the latest survey did not present a long-term picture of the implications for Norfolk. "I'm not sure how this can possibly not affect the coastline," he said. "Between 1989 and 2002 162 million tonnes of sand was dredged in the Humber estuaries and off the East Coast.

"When I heard that I was almost speechless - how can we be this stupid? It's absolute madness - but no one has done a report into the long-term implications of dredging off our coast. "This new report is not comprehensive enough."

Yarmouth Borough Council will decide whether to object to the application during a meeting of the executive next week.

In a report to councillors, head of planning Peter Warner said: "There is also great local concern that aggregate dredging contributes towards coastal erosion which has not been fully addressed. Also there has been no public notice in local newspapers to advertised the proposed extension."

The Norfolk Green Party has also demanded the Government put a stop to dredging by imposing a moratorium.

Hanson operations director Dr Ian Selby denied the dredging application was controversial and said his company had conceded permission to dredge a further 1.2m tonnes from the adjacent area 436.

Council set to call for dredging ban

The threat to the beautiful Welsh Gower beaches took a turn for the better today, as evidenced by the following article published in the Western Mail, to be found on the icWales website.

16th Feb 2006 - Robin Turner, Western Mail

COUNCILLORS in Swansea are expected to call for a ban on dredging today to protect Gower's golden beaches. An application for new arrangements governing the licensing of dredging at the Helwick sand bank off Gower is currently being considered by the National Assembly.

It is anticipated a public inquiry will be held and the views of organisations like Swansea City and County Council will be sought. A report to today's full council meeting says there is uncertainty about the effects of dredging. The report, by cabinet member for the environment John Hague, says dredging should not be allowed until it can be proved dredging will not harm Swansea's beaches and its tourism industry.

The council has previously requested that the Assembly should clarify what specific control measures are to be implemented at Helwick Bank and the local coastline. However, says the report, no such adequate clarification has been provided.

The report says the authority now feels the dredging should not continue when uncertainty exists regarding its potential adverse affect upon the coastal and marine environments. As a result, councillors will be asked today to reiterate the council's policy that, "We are concerned dredging from the Helwick Bank may have a detrimental impact on the coastal environments of the Gower Peninsula which are intrinsic components of the character and natural beauty of the AONB."

The policy will mean Swansea will not support any dredging unless evidence is available to prove it will protect Gower.

Back door to Broads stays shut

STEVE DOWNES - Eastern Daily Press 22nd February 2006

A "back door" that could allow the sea to inundate the Broads will be kept shut for another year after the Government agreed to hand over £2.6m to build up beaches. The move is an about turn by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which last year withdrew funding for the key protection work in north-east Norfolk. Now the Environment Agency has had a "good indication" that £2.6m will be available for the work between Eccles and Winterton in 2006/7.

But last night, a coastal campaigner said ministers had been "let off lightly" because of a year of relatively calm weather.

Malcolm Kerby, co-ordinator of the Happisburgh-based Coastal Concern Action Group, said: "They thought they would get away with not providing the money. They have got away with it because it has not been the worst year, weather wise. But they really had no choice this year. Imagine the scenario if they had withdrawn the money for two years, and in the second year we had another 1953 flood and the sea broke into the Broads."

The money is likely to be handed to the Environment Agency to maintain battered groynes and pump tens of thousands of cubic metres of sand on to beaches. The "beach replenishment" has been needed in the area since a network of granite offshore reefs was built at Sea Palling and Waxham to protect the coast. They have been very successful, but have increased the rate of erosion on beaches further to the east.

The beaches are needed to protect the sea defences, which in turn stop the North Sea from breaking through what is known as the back door to the Broads. Seawater inundation of the freshwater Broads would destroy the environment and wildlife and take a huge chunk out of the region's tourist industry.

Steve Hayman, coastal manager at the Environment Agency, said: "We haven't carried out any work on that stretch this year, but our consultants carried out a survey of the whole frontage before Christmas and reported that the beaches were generally in good order. This funding is good news. If we were hit by a late February storm we would be fairly confident that we would be able to maintain the defences. But that might leave us vulnerable to the next storm, so it's good to have funding that enables us to react."

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, who lobbied the Government about the withdrawal of the money, said: "It is good to hear that the collective pressure might have helped to secure this extra funding. Communities in that part of Norfolk will be reassured that there's money available for investment."

Mr Kerby said Defra needed to "look long term" at coast protection. He said: "There is no clear, ongoing direction from the Government. Funding for one year at a time is not enough. How can we be expected to think in terms of the next 100 years when the Government can't think for more than a year?"

Marine Current Turbines - Welsh support at last!
NEWS February 2006

After their trial of a prototype in the Severn Estuary (off Lynmouth) - see www.marinet.org.uk/archive/archiverefts/cirianov03.html - Marine Current Turbines (MCT) gained support in December for a full-size 1 MW machine in N Ireland (Strangford Lough). In January they publicised plans for a 10MW tidal farm off the north Devon coast, the Lynmouth SeaGen Array. Now, in February the Welsh government are going for part of the action, in giving support to a study of possible locations around Wales - see www.marineturbines.com/news.htm

------- Max Wallis / Cardiff ----------

UK/ DEFRA to consult on fee rises for marine industry environmental licences

From Government News Thursday 9th February 2006. www.bymnews.com/new/content/view/24694/82/

The fees for marine industry environmental licences are under review in a consultation published today. Action is needed because the cost of regulating industries like dredging and marine construction, is not being fully recovered through the licencing system.

The consultation considers each licence component in detail, examining how the fees are built to recover full cost to the regulator. The consultation recommends a 22% increase in disposal licence fees and an increase in the second and third year fees, for long term licences, from 75% to 90% of the cost of a first year licence, and no increase in construction licence fees in the coming financial year.

It proposes creating a core licence regime for disposal operations to ports, so they can manage their own dredging and disposal operations with in-built assessment and sample analyses milestones. The core licence is intended to remain within the current legal framework.

Piloting a scheme where licence applicants can obtain their sample analyses from external, accredited laboratories, giving applicants greater choice.

Members of the public and interested parties can express their views through the 12 week consultation period by logging on to www.mceu.gov.uk/MCEU_LOCAL/FEPA/whatsnew.htm

Environment Agency Awareness

In the most recent issue of the Environment Agency's 'Coastlines' magazine (No.6, October 2005), the question posed was "Does offshore dredging contribute to erosion of the foreshore?"

To which, the EA replied "No, the offshore dredging area currently used for this project is approximately 40 km from the foreshore and is separated from it by an extensive complex system of offshore and nearshore banks".

Well, that's most reassuring! The only thing is that all the dredged areas happen to be well within 40 kilometres of the shore, within 20 km in fact, with none beyond this. The most recent application is within 4 km of the shoreline.

Not that this means very much other than that nearshore dredging will produce a far more rapid rate of local erosion than that more distant. Research by the American Corps of Engineers proved that far more modest dredging 22 km offshore resulted in severe erosion of previously accreting beaches over 65 km (40 miles) distant from the dredging site. (See www.marinet.org.uk/mad/scientificstudies.html#udd )

The EA have declined to publish a letter of correction from MARINET and will not enter into any discussion of the issue. And the EA claim to be the guardians of our environment.

Pat Gowen, 6th Feb.'06

Toxic Time Bomb exploding on the Beach?

Walking their dogs on Pakefield Beach near Lowestoft in early January, owners were horrified to see their animals suddenly shaking with epileptic type fits and frothing from the mouth. Six dogs are known to have died so far, three on the beach itself. It would appear than a long warned of consequence has come about in that deadly leachate from a leaking toxic waste tip owned by Cleanaway has finally reached the beach.

The Gisleham/Pakefield Toxic Waste Tip beside the A12 road (opposite Potters Holiday Camp and Pakefield Beach) had huge levels of Chlorpiriphos, a lethal organophosphorus nerve poison, dumped in an unlined quarry hole in the 1970's. The deadly toxins rapidly polluted the aquifer beneath the holiday camp and were found to be proceeding to leach via the sandstone towards the beach, many hundreds of metres east from the tip, as measured by Waveney District Councils Principal Assistant County Surveyor Colin Palmer.

It was estimated in 1989 that the rapid rate of underground movement meant that the migrating poison would reach the beach and sea within 20-30 years. (See 'Timebomb Underground' - 'Surveyor' 14th December 1989) to be found on www.lickeyconcern.com/related/articles/a_crazy_decision.htm

Terry Trelawney-Gower, Lowestoft and Waveney Engineer expressed his grave concern of Cleanaways unlined and leaching Toxic Waste Tip at Gisleham Quarry, and created contingency plans to build an eight mile long wall to prevent public access to Pakefeild and adjacent beaches when the deadly leachate reached there. Initial concern was written in the pre-MARINET NSAG website (to be found at paragraph 25 on http://members.aol.com/ruraleye/gowen4a.htm ) giving our original mention of the toxic time bomb and the forthcoming threat. It now appears that after thirty-one years the poison has finally reached the beach.

I have spoken to several who's dogs were killed on the beach at Pakefield, and find the symptoms to be highly characteristic of acetylcholine disruption by organophosphate poisoning. Sadly, their animals have been cremated, so forensic analysis is not possible, until and unless more victims result.

DEFRA's Wildlife Division, in the absence of any toxic seaweed or poisonous algae on the beach, is now looking at this likelihood by sampling any non-cremated animals and the underbeach land water flow. The local vetinary clinics are also investigating the issue. Waveney District Council declined to place warning notices along the beach on grounds of not wishing to be seen as alarmist, but a considerate owner of a poisoned dog did so. They have not been removed. The press are heralding this as "a mystery illness". More will appear on this matter later if a cover up does not result.

Pat Gowen - 14th January 2006

Dredged Site Reclamation?

Blaise McCardle is now about to test a new briquette that can be dropped into the deep water channels carved out by dredgers. It's a Sand-Rx time release mechanism that allows for about one month of polymer release in open water. It's heavy and irregular enough to stick to a borrow site and fill it in. The first tests will be at Nantucket to alter the off-shore currents.

images showing 3 impregnated pellets approx 1 inch diameter

If it works it means that rehabilitation of dredged sites may become possible within a few years.

Marine Aggregate Extraction over the years

Review of UK marine aggregate extraction activities - from The Crown Estate

Historic patterns of marine aggregate extraction (tonnes) 1993 - 2003 (Figures exclude beach replenishment and fill contracts)

Extraction Area	Humber	East Coast	Thames	South Coast	SW Coast	NW Coast	Rivers & Misc	Yearly Total
1993	0	9,812,236	1,223,190	4,361,796	2,172,576	380,336	12,651	17,962,785
1994	1,910,064	9,384,860	2,001,208	4,932,372	2,259,046	290,846	14,491	20,792,887
1995	1,788,452	10,497,352	1,661,324	4,428,357	2,285,899	278,126	14,114	20,953,624
1996	1,903,678	9,306,920	1,115,597	4,738,402	2,019,305	287,251	21,784	19,392,937
1997	2,351,233	9,397,705	1,125,921	4,733,825	2,048,014	284,497	18,587	19,959,782
1998	2,694,977	8,923,562	862,834	5,821,701	1,886,289	275,590	6,238	20,471,191
1999	2,840,261	9,131,512	971,960	5,885,332	1,719,803	355,044	6,273	20,910,185
2000	3,122,080	9,129,635	854,483	5,613,538	1,602,394	316,090	46,120	20,684,340
2001	2,933,623	9,636,697	909,141	5,628,008	1,549,431	421,068	73,047	21,151,015
2002	2,710,881	9,011,323	1,291,103	5,399,080	1,467,122	482,270	78,597	20,440,376
2003	2,928,366	8,611,199	838,185	5,658,262	1,515,241	470,962	85,153	20,107,368
TOTAL	25,183,615	102,843,001	12,854,946	57,200,673	20,525,120	3,842,080	377,055	222,826,490

Shifting Sands, Stones and Gravel

The myth that sand and gravel are not mobile is exploded by the following pictures taken by Winterton Coastwatch head Alan McMurchie. They show the beach and offshore spit formed at Winterton-on-Sea on Christmas Eve 2005, and what the wind and high tides did to export it in the modest storm and high tide of the following two days.

In the top pictures of each pair the stratification of the layers can be seen, created by different tidal velocities deciding whether to transport or drop the stones, the suspended gravel, the coarser sand or the finer sediment as the eroding conditions changed.

Before and after Winterton images looking North

Before and after Winterton images looking SSE

In the lower pictures of each pair phaeocystis is seen to be present on the beach, a very early occurrence of that which once did not appear until July.
Please see www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/02/03095327/8 for further detailed information.

In the photograph immediately above, the Scroby windfarm can just be seen on the distant horizon. This is the 'blot on the landscape' amazingly complained of by some protestors who claim to 'have lost their view'!