Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Erosion of north Wicklow coast. Possible cause: Greystones Harbour Development?

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    LifeBeginsAt40
    Closed Accounts Posts: 328 ✭✭LifeBeginsAt40


    Maudi wrote: »
    wow il have to go and have a look at that..i think the international hotel is buried around there...god knows what crap is being unleashed into the sea...have our overlords in europe nothing to say about the irish state polluting the sea....

    No one seems interested in the landfill at Bray washing into the sea every storm and it would seem no one is interested in the building materials and waste doing the same at Greystones.

    You only have to read this thread to see that we're not allowed to mention Bray.

    Stick your head in the sand and it'll all be grand....though you might come out with a plastic bollard and some fence around your ears (joke<<< ok!)


  • Options
    #63
    Cheeky Chops
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭Cheeky Chops


    Any comments would be very welcome.


  • Options
    #64
    Blanchflower
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Blanchflower


    The issue of coastal erosion and the Greystones Harbour development go hand in hand together. Wicklow County Council has allowed Sispar to renege on it's planning obligations to beach nourish the north beach. The impact of putting 2 very large breakwaters on the shoreline at Greystones is already having predictable results. Experts warned at the planning stage of the implications of the urbanisation of the coastline. Wicklow County Council made promises to mitigate these risks that were hollow indeed.


  • Options
    #65
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Serious stuff! Has this been highlighted in the National media, RTE etc? The extent of erosion in both Bray and Greystones is very disturbing on all sorts of grounds - environmental, amenity and the threat to the railway line at both locations. Growing up in Bray in the 1960s I can remember the town dump north of the harbour in full swing and it's the contents of this that are now finding their way into the sea. The once sandy beach at Bray promenade - which had now buried steps leading down to it - is further proof of the consequences of badly planned development work. :(


  • Options
    #66
    cock robin
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭cock robin


    I was in Brittas Bay last weekend and the once golden sandy beach has now gone. It is more akin to Dollymount now, hard packed sand. I just could not believe the erosion. I too remember walking along Bray's sandy beach many moons ago and obviously nothing much is being done over the years to address the problem :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    The Durutti Column
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 274 ✭✭The Durutti Column


    Greystoned wrote: »
    Earlier in the thread some posters raised the subject of the current rate vs. historical rates of North Beach erosion.

    Googling around I found a precise reference to the rate of erosion in the past:



    It was written in 1972 in Ireland: A General and Regional Geography, by Thomas Walter Freeman. See on google books at:
    http://books.google.fr/books?id=33g9AAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA42&amp;dq=greystones+erosion+wicklow+beach&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=WbyGT-Yix4nQBba3xMoH&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=greystones erosion wicklow beach&amp;f=false

    So… the book was written in 1972 and the author is laying down that the rate of erosion is at 4 feet per year from 1905 to 1972. Assuming that 4 ft/year remained the rate from 1972 to the beginning of the marina construction, it would appear that there has been a dramatic increase since the new piers were built – if the earlier photos posted by The Durutti Column (see # 1507 post) are anything to go by.

    The increase in erosion is even more dramatic than you think, Greystoned.

    The historic rate of "cliff toe retreat", to use the proper term, which was presented at the ABP oral hearings into the harbour development in 2006, was 600 millimetres per year, which is closer to two feet annually.

    Experts both for and against stated categorically at these hearings that construction of the breakwaters would dramatically increase erosion at the North Beach and cliffs.

    The breakwaters alter the marine topography so significantly that WCC and Sispar's experts proposed the 30,000 m3 initial beach nourishment to be followed by 6,000 m3 per year merely to contain cliff erosion to below the historic datum of 600mm per year.

    The WCC/Sispar expert witness, Clon Ulrick, stated on behalf of WCC and Sispar that they would place 30,000 cubic metres of shingle as initial capital beach nourishment, to counter the immediate effects of construction of the breakwaters. That was to be placed on the north beach in year 1 of construction.

    WCC/Sispar have placed only one third of this, 10,000m3, in 2008.
     None since.

    Worse, since at least July 2008 the man in charge for WCC, director of services Sean Quirke, has repeated at every opportunity the mantra that the remaining 20,000m3 will be placed sometime during the course of construction of the entire project. The first mention of this was found in minutes of a Harbour Liaison Committee meeting in July 2008, and the latest in a letter he wrote to Bord Pleanala in February this year.

    Either he does not understand the terms of the planning approval for his own project, or he is trying to dodge them or helping Sispar to dodge them, risking destruction of the cliffs and collapse of the dump into the environment in order to do so.

    That is gross negligence bordering on the criminal.

    Ulrick also stated that, starting from year 2 (2009), maintenance beach nourishment of 6,000 cubic metres would be placed annually in order to contain the rate of cliff toe retreat within the historic 600mm per year.

    Sispar/WCC have placed NONE of this annual maintenance — not so much as one single solitary stone.

    I rest my case.


  • Options
    #68
    Jammyc
    Registered Users Posts: 1,979 ✭✭✭Jammyc


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Deleted posts were not off topic, the erosion link has been proved and is taken as the harbour being the direct cause by all, Durutti's posts clearly back this up. The provision of beach nourishment is part of the harbour contract, as is the required surveying of the coast around the area so is an integral part of the harbour discussion.


    +1
    Perhaps I've been blind, but where is the direct proof? Other than speculation based on the logic of "if there's smoke there's fire".

    Again, a question, not meant to antagonise. I may have missed the investigation and analysis.


  • Options
    #69
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,470 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Jammyc wrote: »
    Perhaps I've been blind, but where is the direct proof? Other than speculation based on the logic of "if there's smoke there's fire".
    As highlighted below, it was both known and expected by the experts as were the required measures to prevent it, we've now seen that increased erosion as expected, what more do you need?
    The Durutti Column wrote: »
    It is not speculation. It is a fact, and was thoroughly explored at the ABP oral hearings. Experts both for and against stated categorically that construction of the breakwaters would dramatically increase erosion at the North Beach and cliffs.

    The breakwaters alter the marine topography so significantly that WCC and Sispar's experts proposed the 30,000 m3 initial beach nourishment to be followed by 6,000 m3 per year merely to contain cliff erosion to below the historic datum of 600mm per year.

    That is on the record. If I am able to find it, read it, and quote it, then so should the mods rather than making such an ill-informed comment and basing the split threads decision on it. The evidence is there, and you guys are going against it.

    In due course I will submit my arguments, with supporting evidence, to the appeals procedure.

    edit: posts deleted and moved again, great. How can anyone make a point if stuff is just deleted and hidden...


  • Options
    #70
    Fiachra2
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Fiachra2


    Letter in yesterdays Wicklow Times

    Dear Madam,

    Coastcare is an international organisation, affiliated to Tidy Towns and An Taisce and I am the local Coastcare representative.

    The Council and Sispar waxed lyrical in last week's Wicklow Times. In fact. not fiction, the harbour development has been a disaster for Greystones - whereas formerly it was possible to walk easily to the North beach, and for children to fish from the harbour wall, there is now a kilometre-long, concentration camp-like walk to reach the North beach. There it will be found that the character of the cliff has been destroyed for a considerable distance and replaced by an unsightly heap of rocks - destroying the former nesting site of the sandmartin which had been displaced just prior to Bray Head.

    The 'development' has destroyed the flowering sites of two rare plants - the sand leek and the sea cabbage - and the rest of the flowers that formerly bloomed along the beach.

    To add to this destruction, it is no longer possible to approach the beach via the site of the former gap bridge. It is extremely perilous to attempt the present approach unless one is an intrepid youngster. The only people who have benefited from this development are members of the boat club and there's still no date available as to when the marina will be opened - this year; next year; sometime; never...

    Yours sincerely,

    Ken Baker (Emeritus Professor)


  • Options
    #71
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    7295844024_c0beae1a42_z.jpg
    North Beach 29/05/2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    7295845570_f0641673f9_z.jpg
    North Beach 29/05/2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr


  • Options
    #73
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Won't take long for that to be washed away or am I missing something?


  • Options
    #74
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    7295847112_62d1742c9d_z.jpg
    North Beach 29/05/2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr


  • Options
    #75
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    7295846030_5ac73fd178_z.jpg
    North Beach 29/05/2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr


  • Options
    #76
    Caseywhale
    Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭Caseywhale


    Though alarming, but this is erosion is nothing new. I have photos I took over 8 days in 1987 as part of a coastal erosion project I did, that show roughly the same place (but was much further out to sea then :) ) and about 15 feet of erosion over those 8 days.
    Then a year later another set of photos that were even more dramatic.
    I must root them out when I go home and scan them.

    That part of the coast has always eroded at an alarming rate.


  • Options
    #77
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    7295840958_a7a56701eb_z.jpg
    North Beach 29/05/2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr


  • Options
    #78
    RosieJoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭RosieJoe


    pixbyjohn wrote: »
    7295846030_5ac73fd178_z.jpg
    North Beach 29/05/2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr
    Anyone else see the face in this picture? :D


  • Options
    #79
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    RosieJoe wrote: »
    Anyone else see the face in this picture? :D

    Click on the picture, takes you to my flickr, then look for note on the face :)


  • Options
    #80
    LifeBeginsAt40
    Closed Accounts Posts: 328 ✭✭LifeBeginsAt40


    Caseywhale wrote: »
    Though alarming, but this is erosion is nothing new. I have photos I took over 8 days in 1987 as part of a coastal erosion project I did, that show roughly the same place (but was much further out to sea then :) ) and about 15 feet of erosion over those 8 days.
    Then a year later another set of photos that were even more dramatic.
    I must root them out when I go home and scan them.

    That part of the coast has always eroded at an alarming rate.

    Until it meets the railway line! I'll be sure to make alternative travel arrangements in a decade's time ;)


  • Options
    #81
    hoser expat
    Registered Users Posts: 181 ✭✭hoser expat


    RosieJoe wrote: »
    Anyone else see the face in this picture? :D


    Looks like Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire, which ironically several years ago also collapsed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Reach For The Beach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭Reach For The Beach


    We are a group of people from The Grove. We are concern with current state of the old access to the North Beach at the gap (of Ennis Lane).

    We have just launched an on-line petition, follow link below, as well as a traditional paper petition, I can send a copy by e-mail, yannchef@msn.com

    Our goal is to get this access restored and maintained to allow a safe and easy access to the North Beach.

    Please give us your support and/or spread the word so we have enough power to lobby the Council and Sispar and reach our goal.


    Thank you


    http://www.petitiononline.ie/petition/reach-for-the-beach/1537


  • Options
    #83
    The Durutti Column
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 274 ✭✭The Durutti Column


    Residents of The Grove and surroundings have now been deprived of direct access to the North Beach since last April's gales, during which rapid erosion of the cliffs destroyed the ramp down onto the beach and have made access difficult for all but the most nimble — and dangerous for anyone.

    They have started a petition to get the developers' friend, Wicklow County Council, and Sisk/Sispar, to restore public access to the beach via The Grove. This would be in line with the Local Area Plan and the planning permission for the harbour project, both of which refer to the provision of several points of access to the North Beach from the Cliff Walk and the future public park (Darcy's Field).

    You can sign their petition here:

    http://www.petitiononline.ie/petition/reach-for-the-beach/1537


  • Options
    #84
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,815 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Posts moved around and links fixed

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #85
    Taltos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,830 ✭✭✭✭Taltos


    Followed that link and signed up - surprised to be dumped to a "dating" (used lightly) site on hitting the sign button. They may want to see who they are selling their adverts to.


  • Options
    #86
    micandre
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭micandre


    https://www.facebook.com/RedfordPark


  • Options
    #87
    Oldlegs
    Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Oldlegs


    Taltos wrote: »
    Followed that link and signed up - surprised to be dumped to a "dating" (used lightly) site on hitting the sign button. They may want to see who they are selling their adverts to.

    Online adverts are based on the user/viewers usage profile (as tracked by cookies). So the computer powers that be, reckoned that you might be interested in "dating" for some reason ;)


  • Options
    #88
    Taltos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,830 ✭✭✭✭Taltos


    Oldlegs wrote: »
    Online adverts are based on the user/viewers usage profile (as tracked by cookies). So the computer powers that be, reckoned that you might be interested in "dating" for some reason ;)

    Considering my wife sometimes uses this PC methinks it is time for "da chat..."

    Nah - normally either hip flasks / external hdds / usual komplett deals. Guess it was a randomer so - either that or I really do need that chat :|


  • Options
    #89
    darter
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭darter


    Oldlegs wrote: »
    Online adverts are based on the user/viewers usage profile (as tracked by cookies). So the computer powers that be, reckoned that you might be interested in "dating" for some reason ;)

    There's a great little extension you can add to chrome (and probably firefox and IE, but I use chrome) called Do Not Track Plus. It stops tracking cookies being written. Did you know for example that boards.ie use google analytics to get statistics on users?

    And another for chrome and firefox only called privacyfix that controls cookies and also privacy settings in facebook.


  • Options
    #90
    Maudi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    i see a huge chunk of "the face"has dropped into the sea pixby john.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    pixbyjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,250 ✭✭✭pixbyjohn


    8090654948_653efa4cee.jpg
    North Beach October 15th. 2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr


Advertisement