Coastal erosion disgrace - Sky news
Discussion
I live on the Dorset coast, I've been down this morning looking at the most recent slip.
As others have said, coastal erosion is nothing new and it amuses me that people are suddenly on their high horses about it - have you only just noticed the power of the sea?!
Very little to be done, in our area the District Council and DEFRA are spending millions of pounds protecting the towns where it is possible to do something, it's great and it's protecting whole communities but as others have said the danger of protection some sections is that the damage is passed further down the coast. You can argue the pro's and con's at length but there really is no ability to protect the whole coastline.
Some people bought property over the last twenty years secure in the knowledge that "someone" would build defences and protect the, some have seen that come true, for some it is too late...
As others have said, coastal erosion is nothing new and it amuses me that people are suddenly on their high horses about it - have you only just noticed the power of the sea?!
Very little to be done, in our area the District Council and DEFRA are spending millions of pounds protecting the towns where it is possible to do something, it's great and it's protecting whole communities but as others have said the danger of protection some sections is that the damage is passed further down the coast. You can argue the pro's and con's at length but there really is no ability to protect the whole coastline.
Some people bought property over the last twenty years secure in the knowledge that "someone" would build defences and protect the, some have seen that come true, for some it is too late...
A lex said:
Plenty of people have bought houses with (let's say) a 100yr 'safety net' from the erosion at normal attrition rates.
There is no such thing as a safety net with coastal erosion, all anyone can ever tell you is what has happened in the past. This is absolutely no predictor of what might happen in the future. We have lost more cliff in the last ten years than for many before that - not because of any man made intervention, just because of sea and weather conditions.
It's the sea, it's nature, you can't predict it and anyone who thinks they can take the gamble must accept that they can lose as well as winning.
My Dad nearly bought a house in an exposed road over 25 years ago because it was cheap - everyone said it would be fine because based on recent history the cliff would go back x metres a year and so he'd be fine for 40. Actually the cliff went back significantly in the next 10 years but there will be a defence scheme so the house will probably stand for the next 100 years - it would have been a gamble and one that he decided he wasn't willing to take.
You pay your money, you take your chance...
Cobnapint said:
Its Xmas Day, (Merry Xmas one and all), and have just seen a piece on Sky News about the awful coastal erosion that is taking place on the East Yorkshire Coast.
Because of this, residents homes there are now worth £0 and they stand to lose everything. This is happening on a tide-by-tide basis in many other parts of our fine country as well.
What is the help from the government? A £6k grant for each property - TO HELP WITH DEMOLITION!
Just a question to our leaders.
Considering all the f**king £BILLIONS in foreign aid that we relentlessly pump out on a yearly basis to lands far away that are, for the most part, taking us for mugs by spending it on guns and big Mercedes - isn't it about time we spent some of it protecting our OWN people's interests!
It's just a matter of basic engineering (piles with defences) and looking after your own (for once).
It would cost, but no where near as much as the very questionable High Speed 2 project, and would create employment.
Get on with it before there's nothing or nobody left to erode!
Yeah, that nature, fBecause of this, residents homes there are now worth £0 and they stand to lose everything. This is happening on a tide-by-tide basis in many other parts of our fine country as well.
What is the help from the government? A £6k grant for each property - TO HELP WITH DEMOLITION!
Just a question to our leaders.
Considering all the f**king £BILLIONS in foreign aid that we relentlessly pump out on a yearly basis to lands far away that are, for the most part, taking us for mugs by spending it on guns and big Mercedes - isn't it about time we spent some of it protecting our OWN people's interests!
It's just a matter of basic engineering (piles with defences) and looking after your own (for once).
It would cost, but no where near as much as the very questionable High Speed 2 project, and would create employment.
Get on with it before there's nothing or nobody left to erode!
king disgracefulA lex said:
Err, yes there is.
Im not going digging out specifics, its Xmas day.
The coastline in East Yorks has been measured to erode at XX m per year over 100s, if not 1000s of years (the location of Norman era villages are known) - so we can say there is a pretty well established nominal erosion rate.
Build some coastal defences at point A and the increase in erosion rates further down the coastline at point B increases massively - again thats not BS, its a fact.
I used vague examples, but you could make a perfectly informed decision to buy a property with a 100yr +/- 10-15yrs safety net, and be perfectly happy with your 'choice'.
Along comes the council (a few years after you have bought) and builds defences just up the coastline - that 100yr buffer turns in to something like 20yrs.
Thats not a natural increase in the erosion rate, its purely man made - I think in such circumstances a claim from the council/government is perfectly acceptable and such things should be budgeted for when deciding what to protect and what not to.
Theres a clear distinction to taking a gamble on mother nature and being f*cked by the council with selective barrier construction.
People who buy property 'down wind' of barriers AFTER they have been constructed deserve all they get - im talking about the relatively rare occurrences of householders who find themselves screwed by government decisions.
Global warming is to blame. A convenient scapegoat.Im not going digging out specifics, its Xmas day.
The coastline in East Yorks has been measured to erode at XX m per year over 100s, if not 1000s of years (the location of Norman era villages are known) - so we can say there is a pretty well established nominal erosion rate.
Build some coastal defences at point A and the increase in erosion rates further down the coastline at point B increases massively - again thats not BS, its a fact.
I used vague examples, but you could make a perfectly informed decision to buy a property with a 100yr +/- 10-15yrs safety net, and be perfectly happy with your 'choice'.
Along comes the council (a few years after you have bought) and builds defences just up the coastline - that 100yr buffer turns in to something like 20yrs.
Thats not a natural increase in the erosion rate, its purely man made - I think in such circumstances a claim from the council/government is perfectly acceptable and such things should be budgeted for when deciding what to protect and what not to.
Theres a clear distinction to taking a gamble on mother nature and being f*cked by the council with selective barrier construction.
People who buy property 'down wind' of barriers AFTER they have been constructed deserve all they get - im talking about the relatively rare occurrences of householders who find themselves screwed by government decisions.
People can quote average, historic figures, but that's not the whole story. Nature is unpredictable and doesn't conform to an average....as many people find out. It's a bit like saying that the average level of flooding is x metres so it's OK to buy a house at that level and then being surprised when the water level gets higher.
The geologists watching our coast are concerned about a significant crack half a mile back from the cliff edge - there is real concern that the whole section of cliff could go. What we're seeing is not the cliff face falling away but real movement from further back it he cliff. With significant amounts of rain, the water percolates through the layers and when it reaches the bottom there is a chance of "heave" and significant movement. It's pretty typical for what has happened for years around here though, big slips and then some years of relative stability.
As I said before, it's a gamble based on historic data. As ever some you win, some you lose.
There's a lot of hand wringing from the incomers around here - where most of the locals know, it's what happens, it's happened for hundreds of years and will continue to happen despite our best efforts.
The geologists watching our coast are concerned about a significant crack half a mile back from the cliff edge - there is real concern that the whole section of cliff could go. What we're seeing is not the cliff face falling away but real movement from further back it he cliff. With significant amounts of rain, the water percolates through the layers and when it reaches the bottom there is a chance of "heave" and significant movement. It's pretty typical for what has happened for years around here though, big slips and then some years of relative stability.
As I said before, it's a gamble based on historic data. As ever some you win, some you lose.
There's a lot of hand wringing from the incomers around here - where most of the locals know, it's what happens, it's happened for hundreds of years and will continue to happen despite our best efforts.
A lex said:
http://www.urbanrim.org.uk/erosion%20data.htm
Take a look at profile 63-65, that covers the Aldbrough area, where I am from..... although its a similar profile for any part of the coast south of a protected area.
Defences above Aldbrough started sometime around the early 80s, with the major construction at Mappleton coming in the very early 1990s IIRC.
That is not a 'natural' increase in erosion rate, its not Mother Nature. Its selective human intervention and the genuinely affected have a right to be compensated IMO.
Looking at this map http://www.urbanrim.org.uk/erosion%20map.htm I would say that buying a house on that coastline anywhere south of Flamborough is a gamble.Take a look at profile 63-65, that covers the Aldbrough area, where I am from..... although its a similar profile for any part of the coast south of a protected area.
Defences above Aldbrough started sometime around the early 80s, with the major construction at Mappleton coming in the very early 1990s IIRC.
That is not a 'natural' increase in erosion rate, its not Mother Nature. Its selective human intervention and the genuinely affected have a right to be compensated IMO.
A lex said:
Piglet said:
People can quote average, historic figures, but that's not the whole story. Nature is unpredictable and doesn't conform to an average....as many people find out. It's a bit like saying that the average level of flooding is x metres so it's OK to buy a house at that level and then being surprised when the water level gets higher.
The geologists watching our coast are concerned about a significant crack half a mile back from the cliff edge - there is real concern that the whole section of cliff could go. What we're seeing is not the cliff face falling away but real movement from further back it he cliff. With significant amounts of rain, the water percolates through the layers and when it reaches the bottom there is a chance of "heave" and significant movement. It's pretty typical for what has happened for years around here though, big slips and then some years of relative stability.
As I said before, it's a gamble based on historic data. As ever some you win, some you lose.
There's a lot of hand wringing from the incomers around here - where most of the locals know, it's what happens, it's happened for hundreds of years and will continue to happen despite our best efforts.
Of course its not the whole story - because its leaving out the man made influence The geologists watching our coast are concerned about a significant crack half a mile back from the cliff edge - there is real concern that the whole section of cliff could go. What we're seeing is not the cliff face falling away but real movement from further back it he cliff. With significant amounts of rain, the water percolates through the layers and when it reaches the bottom there is a chance of "heave" and significant movement. It's pretty typical for what has happened for years around here though, big slips and then some years of relative stability.
As I said before, it's a gamble based on historic data. As ever some you win, some you lose.
There's a lot of hand wringing from the incomers around here - where most of the locals know, it's what happens, it's happened for hundreds of years and will continue to happen despite our best efforts.
Do you accept that in some cases householders have been screwed by selective barrier construction - im not sure its a difficult concept to grasp......
If you read all of my first post you'll see my comments about the effect of sea defences on adjoining areas, it's a problem but in the absence of an ability to protect all cliffs it will always be a reality.
What I don't agree with is that there is ever any kind of "safe" area on cliffs of these types or any way to predict what might happen in the future. Even Coastal protection schemes and their effect are to some extent predictable. These properties are always risky and always will be. As I've said above, on our coast big slips happen take out significant amounts of coast and are then not active for many years - if you average that over 50 or 100 years I'm sure it looks fine, the reality is that it isn't.
There is more than one view point, so you will banging your head against a wall if you expect people to simply agree with you. This discussion is also about coastal erosion as a whole and not just about areas adjoining sea defences.
It is always a risk, it is always a gamble.
Wacky Racer said:
Thanks for that link, the one I posted was the end of Mill Lane looking seawards.Those bungalows on the landside of Green Lane where they have had to shorten their gardens used to be the second row of bungalows. There was a row on the seaward side of Green Lane that had big back gardens and massive front gardens to the cliff path. All gone. More than one of those owners bought them on the basis that at the average erosion rate the house would be safe for well beyond their likely span on the planet, but increased erosion means they will be gone in a few years.
We can all lok on thid from the perspective of residential property owners, however there is the issue of farmers. Significant erosion means the farm that they would hand over to the kids to carry on running the family farm just disappears.
RockDoctor said:
jmorgan said:
Tricky one. The coast around here is solid rock, I would be happy to live on the coast here. I think there are some parts of the country you just have to accept that King Canute was right.
Solid rock won't stop the sea!Edit, in comparison with the places that get washed away every year. I suppose over a lot of time it will go but not in my life time.
Edited by jmorgan on Tuesday 25th December 17:14
A lex said:
The council comes along in the mean time and builds defences 5 miles up the road, your 100yr safety gap suddenly becomes 20yrs overnight.
Why?? Why should erosion move up the coast simply because you stopped it in one place? What is the law of physics that dictates this will happen?You need to read the article you've quoted more fully.
Long shore drift is the natural action of movement of sediment along a coastline. Sea defences can have an effect on long shore drift the effect of the sea defences isn't long shore drift on its own.
http://geography-site.co.uk/pages/physical/coastal...
Man has been having an effect on long shore drift for years with the building of groynes.
We have seen a difference in erosion at the end of one section of our old sea defences, it isn't a catastrophic difference but there is a section where the waves have started to curve around the back of the old sea wall.
Long shore drift is the natural action of movement of sediment along a coastline. Sea defences can have an effect on long shore drift the effect of the sea defences isn't long shore drift on its own.
http://geography-site.co.uk/pages/physical/coastal...
Man has been having an effect on long shore drift for years with the building of groynes.
We have seen a difference in erosion at the end of one section of our old sea defences, it isn't a catastrophic difference but there is a section where the waves have started to curve around the back of the old sea wall.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff