On 11Feb we were given the latest...18 wooden groynes..sand recharge from dredging of Poole Harbour. So at least wooden groynes will satisfy many who were against rock. But high cost..£3.5 million, with PDC having to pay around £450,000 (us, through levy on Council Tax).
But still something seems not right (to me, at least). I thought most questions were deflected with evasive answers, such as ... oh, I'm sure they would have considered that point....and that one ... and people may have local knowledge, but we've had consultants study it ...and let's not re-visit the 'take away the banjo jetty' issue (why not?).
One question that I don't think has been asked is how feasible it would be to REPAIR the exisiting groynes.
And a number of people thought that the sea would take away any sand brought in (and might dump it back the following week). It may be that many people prefer wooden groynes to rock, if we have to something. But do we REALLY need anything on this scale? What about an ongoing schedule of maintenance, of the existing groynes, and of any damage that may occur to the seawall?
Ah well, any experts out there? [PS Why aren't meetings like this officially minuted, for the record and for the benefit of those who could not be there?]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
At the moment I can only seem to publish as anonymous - however, I'm Rowland Hughes.
I agree entirely with Mike's comments - even moreso.
We all want the seawall, and consequently the beach as well, saved. The question is what is the best way to go about it.
It seemed to me that the Halcrow director did not know his facts and instead answered with "follow best practice", "I can assure you..." etc. instead of answering the questions. His reason for this was that the project manager was hospitalised. So he couldn't even be bothered to bring and read the case study notes.... With regard to listening to local people, he obviously hadn't listened to Mr Marsh, the only other person to vote against the proposal with me. In fact neither of us was against, we just didn't think that the consultants knew what they were doing. Scouring and drift were mentioned, but we're assured that the new groynes will prevent this. I was totally unconvinced by the assurance of "sustainable" tropical hardwood - there is no such thing. The answer to using man-made materials was cost. So it's OK to chop down the rainforsest to save money and then justify the cost of "global warming prevention" - caused as a duirect result of chopping down rainforests, which act as a carbon sink.
The cost of repairing the existing groynes was estimated at £2.5 million. Why?
Then our mayor dictated that question time was over - vote now or else - and that was it.
No vote was taken on pulling down the banjo jetty.........
Post a Comment