Today's EDP carries a story http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnli ne&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED 28%20Mar%202008%2008%3A37%3A53%3A153 (see link in next post for main story) that has been bubbling for some time but is now looking more like becoming government policy. In short, the proposal is not to defend the shoreline at its weakest points (Eccles to Winterton) and to allow the sea to breach current defences thus creating a permanent "embayment" stretching several miles inland. It follows that, if these plans are adopted, maintenance will cease very soon thereafter.
Farmland, many villages, businesses, habitat - all will be lost. No talk of compensation, so far as I can see.
There are recreational, ecological, economic and human rights issues to be considered and on balance, it seems to me that maintaining sea defences is probably the better and cheaper, option.
It is imperative that, from now on, proper public consultation is conducted and that a full analysis of likely costs of each option is undertaken (and published) before firm plans are made.
 |
|
Forum
Thread - A threat to the Broads?
Return to: All forums, Save The Broads
Reply to topic
Page: 1, 2, 3
You're not logged in - to log in, click here.
To register a forum account, click here.
View our Terms of Use Policy.
NEW You can now attach images to your posts. They will also be inserted into our gallery!
Posts are ordered from oldest to newest. Click here to change order.
| Author | Message |
|---|
|
Richard Baguley
28th Mar '08 08:22 |
|
|
Poppy
28th Mar '08 08:41 |
|
|
johnm
28th Mar '08 09:05 |
The story can be found here:
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnli ne&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED 28%20Mar%202008%2008%3A36%3A43%3A787 BTW, this is the next development of a plan that has been sitting in the wings for some time. Having purchased one ofthe bungalows above Potter about 18 months ago, during the course of my researches (being a professional hydrographer and concerned about sea level rise - as well as whether I will get up Heigham Sound in a Centreplate Halfdecker!) I spotted that this was referred to as a possible option in the 20-50 year timeframe. This I considered an entirely logical, though not preferred, option given the likely rise in sea levels during that period. The concept, however, of abandoning the current line immediately and retreating to the tertiary line (The A149 line) having ignored the secondary line (B1159 coast road) completely is criminal! This needs to be fought on many fronts and as quickly as possible! I feel a few more No 10 Petitions coming on! |
|
johnm
28th Mar '08 09:06 |
 The perils of distractions and slow drafting. Poppy beat me to it! |
|
Broadside
28th Mar '08 14:18 |
....and 1st April is not until next Tuesday
Does the River Thurne not flow inland from Potter Heigham? Perhaps it flows uphill. or perhaps this is just the nonsense we expect when the environmentalists want more money to experiment with our "habitat". |
|
Old Frank
28th Mar '08 19:19 |
Well, yes but there was a time, before Ant Mouth was constructed, when the Ant flowed into the Hundred Stream to the Thurne, which flowed the other way out into the sea through what is now called Sock Drain. A number of these marsh rivers don't need much to fundamentally upset their balance/flow. Beware.
Does this mean that the bit above Thurne Mouth won't need a Harbour Authority? |
|
Gaff Rigged
28th Mar '08 20:21 |
King Knut could not hold back the tide - but his advisors were fallible. How reliable are ours?
It seems to me that, in their rush to declare gloom and doom to the human inhabitants, the ecocentrics are missing out on the possible opportunities. These should be explored and the benefits could recompense those who are threatened by the inundation. GR (carefully typed, GF) |
|
Gruntfuttock
29th Mar '08 17:54 
|
Oh, I don't reckon there's a risk of folk confusing us Gaffer, I'm the one with just a stick and a boom.
Talking of which, this fine example of the lunatics 'considering' a takeover of the asylum stands to evict our boomers - the scarce but surviving Bittern. Man-made habitats don't work (just ask Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust) for this rare heron, it is just too fearful of man. Quite understandable, as it was man who sent the species to the knife-edge of extinction. So I'm just waiting for an expert's statement informing me that the Bittern (and the Swallowtail and the Otters and so on) will safely move on to another haunt. Then I shall have to ask why there's such a problem with evicting newts from the ditches along Acle Straight. Gruntfuttock of Peasemoldia. Gateway to the Broads Notionally Flooded Park. |
|
Old Frank
30th Mar '08 17:24 |
Some of my best friends resemble newts.
What bothers me is i) The Broads Authority seem to be embarrassed at having been 'found out' at being involved in these discussions but most of all ii) Who the hell do these unelected quangos that are proposing to turn people's homes and businesses into a nature reserve think they are? Like a great deal around here the root of the problem doesn't seem to lie far from Defra's door. The only high point, which will be of no consolation to those living and working within the six villages, is that a tidal inlet of this nature will provide some splendid water for the punt gunning that we're not allowed on the Broads any more! Cark, Cark! Old Frank. |
|
Mardler
30th Mar '08 19:11 |
Oh, I can see several advantages, OF, not least being a sheltered anchorage for the North Sea sailor. Why not open the embayment a bit and create a larger inland sailing area, with beaches and a yacht club, or two? Norfolk's very own, mini, version of Chichester Harbour: at least a certain Authority won't be in charge.
Naturally, there'd have to be a sea lock at Potter instead of the bridge... NWT may not be the only group to see advantages. OK, I confess to playing devil's advocate. |
|
old salt
2nd Apr '08 09:29 |
Mardler.I wonder why it is that those in favour of DEFRAs proposals state the main reason is that sand dunes and walls cannot hold back the sea,and yet it would seem that a sea wall and a lock at Potter Heigham would.It does not make any sense to me.In the 80s a report[origin forgotten now]predicted that if sea defences were not maintained,Peterborough could become a sea side venue by 2030.Alarming but possible!!!!
|
|
squitty
2nd Apr '08 12:51 |
Pay more attention to those maps in the EDP from last week, folks. The suggested new sea "wall" will be by Womack Water, not Potter bridge. That's the shortest transit between the 5m countour line on each side and therefore the cheapest place. Wouldn't work if they moved the whole shoreline back and then had to put something substantial in that might cost money, or people might realize that it would be cheaper to toss some more concrete over the present dunes and that would never do.
I think the point, oh salty one, is that the bay will be so large that the "wall" will be a long way from serious wave action and therefore not need to be very high. A few of those Horsey pike laid end to end should do the trick. Wrap'em in newspaper first to reduce the smell, of course. |
|
old salt
2nd Apr '08 13:22 |
Yes Squitty.I have spent many a happy hour at the Nelson.I was down there for about 10 yrs.with the caravan.A funny thing is we were not allowed in the sand dunes at Waxham or use our caravan until Whitsuntide due to rules and regulations and now nobody gives a damn about the place.What is English Nature and the National Trusts view on the proposals?As for the pike I think you are right,two to a sand bag.
|
|
Gruntfuttock
2nd Apr '08 20:28
|
And so the underlying plan is revealed.
Truth will out, they say. Gottit? Clearly the BA, with its spanking new offices just months away, plans to lease the Womack fieldbase to the MCA. You have to admire the crafty business plan. GF |
|
squitty
2nd Apr '08 22:58 |
If past form is anything to go by, the BA hasn't actually consulted with them yet!
|
| Reply Page: 1, 2, 3 |
Change to:
© Copyright NorfolkBroads.com 2006 - 2009, The East of England's Business Directory.