|
The knowledge that the exploitation of our coastal sand and shingle creates coastal erosion is not new as has been implied.
One hundred years ago, the British Government set up the Royal Commission on Coastal Erosion "...to reach some conclusion with regard to the amount of land which has been lost in recent years by the encroachment of the sea on the coasts of the United Kingdom...". The Minutes of this appeared in 1908 and 1909, and the Final Report in 1911)expressed concern that removal of such sand and gravel caused or accelerated coastal land loss.
Following the loss to the sea of the village of Hallsands due to dredging for aggregate for the Devonport Dockyard, there then followed bitter arguments about the effects of extraction and how both the Government and the dredging contractors responded to land and property losses. The Government responded by setting up this Royal Commission on Coastal Erosion, following on the practice that Royal Commissions were established to inquire publicly about very important issues of national concern. It commenced work in 1907 and presented its Final Report in 1911. It was required to inquire and report:
"As to the encroachment of the sea on various parts of the Coast of the United Kingdom and the damage which has been or is likely to be caused thereby; and what measures are desirable for the prevention of such damage".
It further considered what powers were needed for protection and if changes to the law were merited. The Royal Commission Final Report (1911 p.158) concluded:
"The removal of materials from many parts of the shores of the Kingdom and the dredging of material from below low water mark, have resulted in much erosion on neighbouring parts of the coast" and that "Removal of sediments from the shore should be illegal" (Para. 7(a) p.160).
The Final Report (1911, Part II) said that on the basis of foreshore losses "the gradient of the foreshore must be becoming steeper." (p.45). However, there was no recognition by the authorities of the implications. More recently, Taylor et al (2004) report that 61% of the coastline was steepening and 33% had flattened. This recognition, long before the onset of Global Warming, is critical to the debate about coastal changes, especially in the discussion of sand-mining impacts, as it indicates a progressive exposure of beaches to serious damage.
Despite the extensive damage to the English North Sea Coast in 1953, the Waverley Committee on Coastal Flooding (1954) failed to comment on this, but merely noted an increasing frequency of severe storms. However it stressed that research into the movements of beach material, offshore sand banks and related coastal problems was urgent (Summary of Recommendations Para. 114 -(3), p.28).
Empirical research 20 years ago by the American Corps of Engineers proved that dredging a total of less than two million tonnes of sand over a four year period 14 miles from the coast of Cape Canaveral brought about massive erosion of previously accreting beaches forty miles away. Vastly more than this has been dredged olff Great Yarmouth as close as within 3 miles of the coastline.
Many similar scientific papers evidencing the coastal impact of offshore aggregate dredging can be found on our MARINET website by visiting www.marinet.org.uk. These include the EUROSION Report indicating the offshore dredging cause of the erosion of the North Norfolk Coast, and the more recent 'Sandpit Report' by a large group of international expert scientists describing the mechanism as to how this is brought about.
But as the Crown Estate and the Treasury have gained over 1.3 billion pounds as Royalties and on VAT imposed from offshore off Great Yarmouth alone over the past fourteen years, no doubt the dredging companies even more, they are never likely to admit to the cause of the threat now facing Norfolk. If they did admit to the basic cause just imagine the claims for reimbursement and compensation that would result !
Thegovernment bodies only accept the claims made of 'no impact upon the shoreline' made in the Impact Assesments created for the licence applications, all of which are unhesitatingly passed by the government, These IA's are created by companies selected, appointed by and paid for by the dredging organisations themselves. The government adviser is the head of one of these companies.
Thus, our erosion and the dredging is likely to continue unabated, as vested interest and big money is at stake here.
And has it been considered that the Shoreline Management Plan, 'Managed Retreat' and 'Making Room for Water' is basically the means of liberating more sand and shingle from our beaches, sand cliffs and dunes to aid and abet continuity of a reducing source ?
Pat Gowen, MARINET & NSAG
Pat Gowen
|