Gorleston Beach
  •  gorleston Beach | 
  • These events occurrred in the years 2004/5
 

St Andrews Hall Meeting Mar 2005

Below is the letter sent out by John Hemsworth with minutes relating to the St Andrew's Hall Meeting on Tue 22nd Mar 2005.

Environment and Health
Maltings House
Gorleston
Tue 19th Mar 2005

Dear Resident

Please find the attached notes of the meeting held at St Andrews Hall Gorleston. I apologise that it has taken some time to put them out to you, but the March - April period is a particularly busy time and unfortunately there have been a number of other front line issues I have had to complete especially around end of year budget processes.

The next step - I shall be putting a report forward to Cabinet which outlines the present position recommending an early meeting with representatives of DEFRA. As you know the initial scheme was produced in close liaison with colleagues and DEFRA to meet their criteria - the revised scheme we felt had a good chance of making those same conditions. As you are aware however at the meeting, whilst there was some support, in principal for a promenade repair allied to beach monitoring it was made clear the original objection remained

It would not be financially sensible to continue to incur further costs regarding designing any scheme until we now have a clear steer from officers at DEFRA about what would satisfy their bidding criteria.

I shall do my best to keep you advised.

Yours sincerely

John Hemsworth

Head of Environment and Health

Apology

re: proposed meeting on 22nd March 2005

Dear Mr Hemsworth

Unfortunately I shall be away on the above date but would like to ensure the following points are made at the meeting (I have copied Mr Jamie Campbell).

Everyone concerned should be made fully aware of the potential impact on Gorleston Beach if the proposed Outer Harbour does indeed become a reality. The site is immediately north of the existing harbour mouth and it will have to be dredged to a depth of a least 9m in order to float ships of up to 8m draft (ref: Amion report). The approximate dimensions of the proposed port are some 320,000 square metres and the volume of material removed would be in the order of 1.4 to 1.6 million cubic metres. In addition to the actual harbour, there would also need to be a wide shipping channel of at least 10m (33ft) water depth dredged through Yarmouth Roads and out beyond Scroby and Holm sandbanks. Thus the total amount of initial spoil rermoved could well be increased to 3 million or more cubic metres. Many people are very concerned about the possible impact of offshore dredging to the shoreline in general and Gorleston beach in particular; so they should be equally, or perhaps very much more, concerned abouth this aspect of the Outer Harbour.

I have already made the point directly to the DfT that the impact and cost of both the surveying and dredging for the proposed Outer Harbour, and the approaches to it, have apparently not been included in the feasibility study ie the Amion report. We also now know (EDP) that the approval given for government funding has completely ignored all technical and financial advice and has been given purely on the grounds of hardship. The means that there is no understanding of peripheral issues and that the government could have approved the demolition of Gorleston beach without even realising it. I am now trying to obtain details of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Outer Harbour in order to establish what it actually said about the impact on the surroundinf areas. I have some good reasons to suspect that the result of further investigations will show that there is a very real danger to the future of Gorleston beach from this source and it will therefore make complete nonesense of any attempts to monitor the beach configuration, as has been promised over the next five years.

It is obvious that all work to preserve and protect what is probably the very best amenity that Gorleston has to offer to both residents and visitors should be properly coordinated, evaluated and executed. I would therefore suggest that GYBC should form a formal sub-committee to examine, question and approve any and all proposals, which affect the Gorleston area and amenities. One such obvious, but largely ignored item is the East Reef project which is backed by the EEDA. If this interesting idea could be actively encouraged to take place in the southern part of Yarmouth Roads, it would:

  1. almost guarantee the continued existence of Gorleston beach in its present form
  2. prevent all wave damage to the lower promenade
  3. incorporate an Outer Harbour of radically different design to that proposed
  4. provide the possibility for a great many leisure facilities at Gorleston and the surrounding area

Yours truly,

Peter Johnson C.Eng., FRINA

Gorleston Coast Protection Meeting

St Andrews Hall, Gorleston Tue 22nd Mar 2005 (7.00 - 9.00 pm)

This meeting was convened to discuss the conclusions reached at the "Residents Forum". The meeting was not as well attended as the meeting at the Library in September last year. However there was a lively debate and it was decided that the Council would meet with residents again to iron out a few remaining differences. The plan to carry out repairs to the sea wall allied with a beach monitoring programme seemed acceptable to most of those attending as you will see.

60 residents signed the attendance register.

Councillor B Collins opened the meeting by explaining why it had been called. He referred to the previous public meeting held at Gorleston Library on the Wed 29th Sep 2004 and the subsequent Residents Forum at the Town Hall on Mon 24th Jan 2005.

1. Mark Barrow referred to the notes of the meeting with local residents which had been sent out with the letter advising residents of this meeting. A further copy had been placed on the seats provided for the residents together with a copy of a letter submitted by Peter Johnson. Mark Barrow asked those who had been at the meeting on the 24 January whether they had anything they wished to contribute prior to the following presentation. There were no further comments.

2. Mark Barrow said there were a range of issues to be considered including current consultation on the Kelling-Lowestoft Ness proposed Shoreline Management Plan. This reinforced the importance of taking account of the effect of decisions on neighbouring areas. He referred to a Parliamentary question raised by Norman Lamb MP about issues affecting the North Norfolk Coastline. He said that following the meeting with residents on the 24 January 2005 new proposals would be presented.

3. Mark Glennester of Halcrow made a presentation which he said took into account the points raised at the resident's meeting. He said the new proposal included seawall repairs and refurbishment during the first year together with a 5 year beach monitoring programme and data review. The types of repair included "top crete" - (a surface/reinforced steel sprayed concrete process) and/or new promenade front walling.

The five year monitoring programme would take into account monitoring agreed with East Ports (the Outer Harbour Development Company) and the Environment Agency. On the ground technique would include visual and pictorial recording, laser scanning and traditional surveying methods.

Profiles would be evaluated at 100 metre centres along the beach and the information would be fed into a 3D profiling model.

In conclusion the proposal was to repair the promenade sea wall and carry out beach sand monitoring with a view of reviewing the latter in 2011.

4. Mark Barrow referred back to the previous meetings held on the 29 September 2004 and 24 January 2005. He referred to the reefs and to the predictions relating to increased Sea Levels resulting from "Climate Changes" He went over the key points of the Halcrow presentation and referred to a request for the proposed new scheme to DEFRA. A figure of £1-2 million for the new scheme for seawall repairs was quoted. He said it was recognised that there was a need to continue sharing information on the beach and sand movement.

 

Councillor Bert Collins opened the meeting up for questions and comments. Residents did not identify themselves and therefore the following notes take the form of questions and comments.

Question Why wasn't all Council information made available on the web. The questioner had created a website and felt the Council should provide its information in a similar way.
Comments The Council is presently re-populating its website and information could be included. The Council had recently taken back control of its website from an external supplier and it was in a development stage - the above point by the questioner was well made.

Question Will the beach profile be taken before or after the Council carries out beach levelling.
Comments The plan at present is to carry out detailed profiling on at least four occasions per year.

Question The proposed number of surveying occasions is not enough and inadequate information is being considered for collection.
Comments The questioner was invited to assist in the design of the survey - the questioner agreed.

Question Why not survey along the lines of the existing groynes?
Comments A point that will be taken into account when designing the monitoring programme.

Question It had been previously stated that a new sea wall would cost £20 million - what was the priority a properly constructed wall or a beach survey?
Comments The sea wall was last surveyed in detail for scheme design purposes in 2000/01. An exact costing for a current scheme was not known at present. The proposals had been outlined in the presentation.

Question The beach was much wider now than it was 40 years ago.
Comment Reference was made to some photographs noted in an old local guide.

Question How would the Council know if the reefs would work?
Comment The effect would be monitored using information from the Environment Agency Coastal Surveys. The previous proposals were based on consultants modelling.

Question What happens if DEFRA "say no"?
Comment This would depend upon the reason.

Question Where are the details of the Environment Agency Monitoring?
Comment Available from the Environment Agency or on the Environment Agency's web-site.

Question Has the Council ever claimed compensation from the Port because of the historical effects of the harbour on Gorleston Beach.
Comment No.

Comment To retain sand, rocks should be placed along the foot of the promenade sea wall because at the Southern end of the wall sand was building up.

Question In the last 12-24 months there had been no visual evidence of any significant spend on the sea wall.
Comment Such work would have been premature with a scheme for substantial repairs pending a decision for Government funding.

Question Has the effect of Offshore aggregate been considered?
Comment As far as is possible (The Council has a policy to oppose plans for Offshore Aggregate dredging on the grounds there is a lack of validated information to support or otherwise the case that coastal damage is caused or not).

Comment The harbour wall ("Cosie") has a detrimental effect on Gorleston beach. Protection of the coast should rely on an outer bank not the seawall.

Comment The Outer Harbour will result in sand loss from Gorleston Beach. There is insufficient guarantee from the developers of the Outer Harbour - East Coast Port - in relation to compensation especially in the case of bankruptcy.

Comment The sand movement on Gorleston Beach is onshore - offshore not a South ward drift.

Comment The Council is supporting the outer harbour on economic and employment grounds and they are taking all the reasonable steps they can to protect Gorleston Beach.

Comment There is no reason to support the view of sand loss. Breydon had previously flowed to the sea in a wide estuary which had continuously silted up. There is no evidence to support the view that an intervention to deal with sand loss will be needed.

Comment The eccentricities and complexities of the DEFRA bid process was explained as was the manner by which bids are assessed.

Comment The proposal to "patch up the sea wall with beach monitoring is not a persuadable argument - There is agreement with the principal but not any proposal for a "patch and mend" solution.

Comment The proposal is gambling with property.

Question Wish to enjoy the beach - are the repairs "patch and mend" to see what the effects of the Outer Harbour will be.
Comment No.

Question Ad-hoc "patch and mend" repairs are not appropriate. Any monitoring scheme must be flexible to consider all circumstances.
Comment The monitoring scheme has not yet been designed.

Question Why can't the money being allocated for Great Yarmouth be spent fairly to include Gorleston which gets nothing.
Comment European and Government money comes to the Borough with strict controls relating as to how and where it can be spent. It is frustrating for Council Members and Officers that flexibility is not possible, however inward investment to the Borough must be welcomed.

Comment Why not place concrete blocks on the beach to protect the coast.

Comment The scheme is inappropriate and the objection to it will not be removed. Any objection not resolved means the scheme cannot progress.

Mark Barrow went over the reason for the public meeting and asked for a show of hands to give an informal indication of support for the principle of the proposal to carry out repairs to the sea wall together with a five year beach monitoring programme.

The number of raised hands appeared significantly higher than those not raised indicating a consensus of support in principle.

The residents who had been involved with the Residents Forum meeting on Jan 24th 2005 agreed they would be prepared to assist the process further.

Councillor Bert Collins thanked the residents for attending the meeting.

The meeting closed at 8.50pm