News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

Dunphus

karma_coma wrote: »

Does anyone have a geographical explanation as to why the shingle beach washed away and if related, how the harbour development affected it?

I'm not sure of the exact mechanism that's happening in Greystones but I would guess it's longshore drift.

The marina may cause an obstruction against the balance of deposition of sediment from the south beach onto the north beach, hence one getting bigger and the other smaller.

It has been a while since I've been on the water so I can't remember what the prevailing winds are, but I guess they're north easterly's so it's possible

The kish base caused something similar no? That's why the old harbour filled up with sand? So the sediment from the north beach was travelling south and got caught in the harbour.

None of that is fact, just food for thought.

recedite

karma_coma wrote: »

Does anyone have a geographical explanation as to why the shingle beach washed away and if related, how the harbour development affected it?

You see that big curved beach in the foreground of post #1313?
Most of that area was infilled and and the land was artificially extended out into the sea. The rest of the North Beach is still there. This valuable reclaimed waterfront land is what Sispar are jealously guarding behind the big steel palisade fence.

What some are suggesting here is that the South Beach on the other side of the harbour is growing and extending out, while the cliffs at the North end are eroding faster now.
Only time will tell; there were always some seasonal changes to be seen.
Certainly that high diving platform at "The Mens" looks very low, and very landlocked now.

Taltos

If you need to see evidence of erosion just look at the colour of the water.
As a kid I used to sit on that beach at night when I couldn't sleep, horrible to see the state of it now.
Hopefully no one will get caught under a cliff fall. Figure it I'd a matter of time before the area is closed for our safety and "analysis"

pixbyjohn wrote: »

North Beach, Greystones 21st Feb 2012 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Fiachra2

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Just for clarification, my 2007 photos were taken in August 2007. I am not sure if August 2012 photos will show much difference to today's photos ( Feb 21st 2012).

I think you will find one difference John. In your 2007 photo you can see evidence of growth all along the base of the cliffs This growth is no longer evident. This would indicate that the erosion is much more rapid now (the vegetation has no time to grow.)

It is important to remember that WCC confirmed that the building of the harbour would accelerate erosion. They maintained that by piling shingle on the beach they would slow down (but not stop) this erosion. As they have not placed any shingle on the beach for about 3 years it is perfectly reasonable that the erosion will be greater than it was before. We dont need to speculate on this matter. WCC confirmed to An Bord Pleanala that this would be the case.

legrand

karma_coma wrote: »

Does anyone have a geographical explanation as to why the shingle beach washed away and if related, how the harbour development affected it?

Not off hand although I do recall this was a major point of discussion when 'planning' was being sought for the development. The official word was harbour would not have any impact on beaches/erosion.

Have been living here for nearly 15 years and over those years have seen the north beach rise and fall by at least a metre (sometime more at north end of north beach) depending on sea conditions/season. Have seen the South beach rise also (with new coves north of 'mens bathing' area) but that usually lasted a week or two at most. Have not seen it last this long so far - must be 3 months now.

To be honest I don't think we will ever discover/prove if harbour has directly impacted level of erosion on North beach - we have seen large area collapse before the harbour was built. That said, if South beach level remains as is indefinitely we could surmise that is related to the harbour - but as it happens (in my view) that may be positive impact is no far as the beach is less steep as it meets the water.

pixbyjohn

Fiachra2 wrote: »

I think you will find one difference John. In your 2007 photo you can see evidence of growth all along the base of the cliffs This growth is no longer evident. This would indicate that the erosion is much more rapid now (the vegetation has no time to grow.)

Yes Fiachra I agree there is a world of difference between 2007 and 2012 but my point was would there be much of a difference between now February 2012 and August 2012 because of the seasons. Last August 2011 the North Beach still was a stony beach and had more width than at present. My wonder is will that come back by August this year 2012.
Just an aside but the clay at the bottom of the bank is ideal modelling clay for anyone doing a bit of pottery.

Fiachra2

legrand wrote: »

Not off hand although I do recall this was a major point of discussion when 'planning' was being sought for the development. The official word was harbour would not have any impact on beaches/erosion.

It was actually the opposite. See my post above. The developer confirmed that the harbour would most definitely have an impact on erosion

Fiachra2

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Yes Fiachra I agree there is a world of difference between 2007 and 2012 but my point was would there be much of a difference between now February 2012 and August 2012 because of the seasons. Last August 2011 the North Beach still was a stony beach and had more width than at present. My wonder is will that come back by August this year 2012.
.

Like you John I have lived here a long time and throughout those years the beach has always shifted around with more volumn at one end or the other. (Much like the south Beach at present). So some of whats happening there would have happened anyway However what we do know is that the harbour will/does effect it and your photograph illustrates it very well. I certainly dont recall it having vegetation in August 2011.

However lets see what happens!

Jimjay

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Just an aside but the clay at the bottom of the bank is ideal modelling clay for anyone doing a bit of pottery.

Lol, it's nothing to do with erosion, just those pesky potters digging up the cliffs.
Btw I think it may be illegal to take anything from a beach including clay and pebbles.

mikedragon32

Jimjay wrote: »

Lol, it's nothing to do with erosion, just those pesky potters digging up the cliffs.
Btw I think it may be illegal to take anything from a beach including clay and pebbles.

Correct.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1933/en/act/pub/0012/sec0006.html#sec6

Foreshore Act 1933 wrote:

6.—(1) In this Act the expression “prohibitory order” means an order made, or deemed to have been made under this section prohibiting the removal of beach material from an area of seashore.

(2) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that the removal or the unrestricted removal of beach material of any kind or of any particular kind or kinds from any particular area of seashore has affected or is likely to affect prejudicially any public rights in respect of such area of seashore or any lands or water in the neighbourhood thereof or has caused or is likely to cause injury to any land or to any building, wall, pier, or other structure, the Minister may prohibit by order the removal by any person of beach material either (as the case may require) of any kind or of the said particular kind or kinds from the said area of seashore.

(3) The Minister may by order at any time at his discretion, revoke or amend a prohibitory order.

(4) Whenever the Minister has made or proposes to make, amend, or revoke a prohibitory order, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, hold a public inquiry in regard to the continuation, making, amendment, or revocation (as the case may be) of such order.

(5) Every person who shall remove any beach material from any foreshore or seashore in contravention of a prohibitory order shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine of ten pounds and, in every case to forfeiture of the beach material so removed.

(6) Every order made under section 14 of the Harbours Act, 1814, and in force at the passing of this Act shall continue in force notwithstanding the repeal of that section by this Act, and every such order shall for all purposes be deemed to have been made under this section on the date on which it was actually made although such date is prior to the passing of this Act.

(7) A prohibitory order shall not operate to prevent the granting under this Act of a licence to remove beach material from foreshore to which such order applies or to prevent the removal of beach material from such foreshore under and in accordance with a licence granted (whether before or after the making of such order) under this Act.

I'm sure it's been updated since, I'll try to find any SIs that amend the fines etc...

mikedragon32

mikedragon32 wrote: »

Correct.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1933/en/act/pub/0012/sec0006.html#sec6



I'm sure it's been updated since, I'll try to find any SIs that amend the fines etc...

1992 Amendment act increases the fines somewhat: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1992/en/act/pub/0017/sec0003.html#sec3

Foreshore (Amendment) Act 1992 wrote:

c) by the substitution of the following for subsection (5):

“(5) Every person who removes any beach material from, or disturbs any beach material in, any foreshore or seashore in contravention of a prohibitory order shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both,

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding—

(i) £100,000, in the case of a first offence under this section, and

(ii) £200,000 in the case of a second or subsequent offence under this section,

or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both.”,

recedite

Still waiting for a photo to appear of someone robbing clay from the cliffs..........

F3

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/how-nama-developer-cruised-the-caribbean-3031843.html


NAMA developer Michael Cotter spent last week sailing the high seas around the islands of the Caribbean, far from the travails of the property market shambles back at home.

Mr Cotter raced his €1m-plus 80ft yacht Whisper out of the beautiful sun-drenched island of Antigua in temperatures of a balmy 25 degrees for a four-day fixture that is one of the most prestigious events on the sailing calendar.

The Caribbean 600, a six-hundred-mile offshore race around 11 islands of the Caribbean, is run by Antigua's Royal Ocean Racing Club.

One of the Celtic Tiger's biggest construction companies, Mr Cotter's Park Developments was one of the first to sell €1m-plus homes in Dublin in the early days of the property boom. Park was also reported to be one of the bidders for the Jury's Doyle site that was eventually bought for €400m by Sean Dunne.

On Friday night, champagne corks popped and the celebrations were lively at the prizegiving ceremony at the packed Antigua Yacht Club, a location legendary for its post-race parties and super wealthy yacht owners.

Last month Whisper won the more informal Antigua Yacht Club's Round The Island Race and Mr Cotter's yacht is signed up for three more races in Antigua in coming months.

Mr Cotter also sails out of Dun Laoghaire and Villefranche on the French Cote D'Azur, where he and construction empire chief John Sisk are developing an exclusive yacht club. Mr Cotter's 80ft Reichel Pugh cruiser racer is worth €1m-€2m, according to the boat's San Diego designers.

Mr Cotter has raced Whisper on Mediterranean, Irish and British waters for the past six years. This year saw the yacht's Caribbean debut.

Park Developments is one half of a consortium partnered with the local council on a massive unfinished €300m marina development at Greystones Harbour, Co Wicklow.

Sispar, a partnership between Park Developments and construction giant Sisk, had its loans transferred to Nama in 2010. Phase two of the development is incomplete, to much dissatisfaction.

Sispar has applied to Nama for funding to progress the development and Nama has responded with a request for further details from the consortium and will make a decision on whether the project will proceed in March.

"It is essential that certainty is brought to the future of this project as quickly as possible," said Fine Gael TD Simon Harris. "My absolute concern for this development is that all the public facilities which were pledged to the people of Greystones are delivered upon."

It is believed that loans associated with the Greystones Harbour development are being serviced in full and on time.

Mr Cotter did not respond to requests for comment.

- Roisin Burke

F3

"....to much dissatisfaction"

Is that it?

F3

The north beach is gone!! What next?? The dart line?? Redford Park?? How long is it going be before a child is killed with the Cliffs collapsing on the north beach??? I was there this morning and witnessed a 10 Tonne section of cliff collapse into the sea.................

F3

Pixbyjohn, could you put together a collection of photographs to put before the authorities of the erosion on the North Beach? Perhaps send them into GUBOH

pixbyjohn

F3 wrote: »

Pixbyjohn, could you put together a collection of photographs to put before the authorities of the erosion on the North Beach? Perhaps send them into GUBOH

Sorry, no. And my reason is that as a hobbyist photographer my photographs would not be accepted as evidence in the scenario you outline.
To do this correctly you would need a team of engineers who have expertise in the field of coastal erosion who would probably commission a photographer to assist in the visual aspect but a lot of work would have to be carried out as regards measurements etc. to prove a case. But we all know there is massive erosion but to actually prove it to the authorities is a different matter. (e.g. Every fool in the country knew that the site for the new children's hospital should not have been beside the Mater Hospital. But did that stop the experts, no. )

F3

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Sorry, no. And my reason is that as a hobbyist photographer my photographs would not be accepted as evidence in the scenario you outline.
To do this correctly you would need a team of engineers who have expertise in the field of coastal erosion who would probably commission a photographer to assist in the visual aspect but a lot of work would have to be carried out as regards measurements etc. to prove a case. But we all know there is massive erosion but to actually prove it to the authorities is a different matter. (e.g. Every fool in the country knew that the site for the new children's hospital should not have been beside the Mater Hospital. But did that stop the experts, no. )

I understand John, and accept that it is your call. I wouldn't worry too much about whether the same is accepted as evidence, as a few chronological before and after photographs would clearly demonstrate that this is not 'marginal' erosion but something else. I think what is required (again) is for the locals to bring the matter to the fore.

Cheeky Chops

I have gone from being frustrated at this thread to annoyed. A few of us asked for a public meeting so we could have a voice. Nothing has progressed. Since then this thread has become about coastal erosion which whilst connected is not the reason we called for a meeting. We want a voice and still have been giving no opportunity to have one! If GUBOH are posting then there is such a lack of focus. Maybe you need to get onboard people that are not just community inclined but have professional skills that they would be happy to offer in order to keep an on focus campaign, away from personal politics, whereby the harbour and its development stay at the forefront. The last 2 pages have been derailing to the campaign because it is going off on a tangent. Stick to the aim.

I'm bowing out of this until some actual progress is suggested. Waffling on a forum is tiresome. Direct action has been called for and has not been addressed. Come out from behind your laptop screens and make a meeting happen.

Maudi

F3 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/how-nama-developer-cruised-the-caribbean-3031843.html


NAMA developer Michael Cotter spent last week sailing the high seas around the islands of the Caribbean, far from the travails of the property market shambles back at home.

Mr Cotter raced his €1m-plus 80ft yacht Whisper out of the beautiful sun-drenched island of Antigua in temperatures of a balmy 25 degrees for a four-day fixture that is one of the most prestigious events on the sailing calendar.

The Caribbean 600, a six-hundred-mile offshore race around 11 islands of the Caribbean, is run by Antigua's Royal Ocean Racing Club.

One of the Celtic Tiger's biggest construction companies, Mr Cotter's Park Developments was one of the first to sell €1m-plus homes in Dublin in the early days of the property boom. Park was also reported to be one of the bidders for the Jury's Doyle site that was eventually bought for €400m by Sean Dunne.

On Friday night, champagne corks popped and the celebrations were lively at the prizegiving ceremony at the packed Antigua Yacht Club, a location legendary for its post-race parties and super wealthy yacht owners.

Last month Whisper won the more informal Antigua Yacht Club's Round The Island Race and Mr Cotter's yacht is signed up for three more races in Antigua in coming months.

Mr Cotter also sails out of Dun Laoghaire and Villefranche on the French Cote D'Azur, where he and construction empire chief John Sisk are developing an exclusive yacht club. Mr Cotter's 80ft Reichel Pugh cruiser racer is worth €1m-€2m, according to the boat's San Diego designers.

Mr Cotter has raced Whisper on Mediterranean, Irish and British waters for the past six years. This year saw the yacht's Caribbean debut.

Park Developments is one half of a consortium partnered with the local council on a massive unfinished €300m marina development at Greystones Harbour, Co Wicklow.

Sispar, a partnership between Park Developments and construction giant Sisk, had its loans transferred to Nama in 2010. Phase two of the development is incomplete, to much dissatisfaction.

Sispar has applied to Nama for funding to progress the development and Nama has responded with a request for further details from the consortium and will make a decision on whether the project will proceed in March.

"It is essential that certainty is brought to the future of this project as quickly as possible," said Fine Gael TD Simon Harris. "My absolute concern for this development is that all the public facilities which were pledged to the people of Greystones are delivered upon."

It is believed that loans associated with the Greystones Harbour development are being serviced in full and on time.

Mr Cotter did not respond to requests for comment.

- Roisin Burke

....and i cant take stuff from the beach?lol

recedite

It is believed that loans associated with the Greystones Harbour development are being serviced in full and on time.
Mr Cotter did not respond to requests for comment.

At least the guy has not left the taxpayer paying his debts, like all the developers who took the option of a 12 month bankruptcy arranged in the UK.
If the company proceeded in building a fancy marina and ghost estate at this time, they presumably would be bankrupted.
The problem as I see it, is 100% with the council who pushed for, and allowed the whole thing to happen, even against the democratically expressed wishes of the local population.

F3

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

I have gone from being frustrated at this thread to annoyed. A few of us asked for a public meeting so we could have a voice. Nothing has progressed. Since then this thread has become about coastal erosion which whilst connected is not the reason we called for a meeting. We want a voice and still have been giving no opportunity to have one! If GUBOH are posting then there is such a lack of focus. Maybe you need to get onboard people that are not just community inclined but have professional skills that they would be happy to offer in order to keep an on focus campaign, away from personal politics, whereby the harbour and its development stay at the forefront. The last 2 pages have been derailing to the campaign because it is going off on a tangent. Stick to the aim.

I'm bowing out of this until some actual progress is suggested. Waffling on a forum is tiresome. Direct action has been called for and has not been addressed. Come out from behind your laptop screens and make a meeting happen.

I gave you the names, now stop showboating and go and talk directly to them! The erosion by the way it would appear to be as a direct result of the new harbour and the 10k m3 of rock protection placed in lieu of 30k m3 that was supposed to have been placed but wasn't.........we have super erosion being caused as a result of the cessation of works at the harbour!!!!

Fiachra2

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

I have gone from being frustrated at this thread to annoyed. A few of us asked for a public meeting so we could have a voice. Nothing has progressed. Since then this thread has become about coastal erosion which whilst connected is not the reason we called for a meeting. We want a voice and still have been giving no opportunity to have one! If GUBOH are posting then there is such a lack of focus. Maybe you need to get onboard people that are not just community inclined but have professional skills that they would be happy to offer in order to keep an on focus campaign, away from personal politics, whereby the harbour and its development stay at the forefront. The last 2 pages have been derailing to the campaign because it is going off on a tangent. Stick to the aim.

I'm bowing out of this until some actual progress is suggested. Waffling on a forum is tiresome. Direct action has been called for and has not been addressed. Come out from behind your laptop screens and make a meeting happen.

I believe I replied to the earlier request and attempted to explain why GUBOH were not going to organise a public meeting at present. I have been campaigning on this issue since 1996 and -while I would be the first to admit that my sucess has been limited-I can claim to have some expertise on what works and what doesnt work in any given situation. As I explained in my earlier post GUBOH believes that a public meeting right now could easily prove counterproductive.

I can only sugest that if you have a contrary view that you set about organising such a meeting yourself and indeed that might be no harm as a signal to the council of the level of public disquiet

I would appeal to you to show some patience. GUBOH has achieved a lot and fully intends to achieve a lot more. Thanks to pressure from Councillor Tom Fortune and GUBOH, WCC and some local councillors have committed themselves to an announcement in the next week or so. If it is not forthcoming we will be looking at a range of options including your sugestion

Fiachra2

Fiachra2 wrote: »

However lets see what happens!

I went down there yesterday for the first time in a couple of months. "What has happened" is dramatic indeed. If you look away from Bray head from the spot you took your pics John you will see very significant erosion at the end of the Rock armour in front of the dump. What is happening (which was entirely predictable) is that the rcok armour is doing its job protecting the dump but that this has simply accelerated the erosion at the soft clay cliff at the end of the armour. The cliff is being eaten away behind the armour which has begun to fall apart. If this continues, the dump will (possibly quite shortly) be exposed.

I have posted a few pictures on the GUBOh facebook page. I haven't quite mastered the technology of getting them up here!

The Durutti Column

Fiachra2 wrote: »

I went down there yesterday for the first time in a couple of months. "What has happened" is dramatic indeed. If you look away from Bray head from the spot you took your pics John you will see very significant erosion at the end of the Rock armour in front of the dump. What is happening (which was entirely predictable) is that the rcok armour is doing its job protecting the dump but that this has simply accelerated the erosion at the soft clay cliff at the end of the armour. The cliff is being eaten away behind the armour which has begun to fall apart. If this continues, the dump will (possibly quite shortly) be exposed.

I have posted a few pictures on the GUBOh facebook page. I haven't quite mastered the technology of getting them up here!

WCC has admitted that no survey has been carried out for two years! It 'plans' to do one during this spring.

WCC also admits that only 10,000 cubic metres of the 30,000 m3 mandated by Bord Pleanala as 'capital beach nourishment' has been placed on the beach, and that NONE of the annual beach nourishment has been carried out.

This despite the fact that the breakwaters were finished two years ago, and it is the breakwaters which are the structures causing the erosion.

So we have a situation where, as soon as the CAUSE of erosion is in place, Sispar and WCC immediately cease taking measures to prevent that erosion. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

The erosion is eating into and starting to collapse the rampart protecting the old dump. The contents will soon be all over the 'beach' and leaching into the sea. SNIP

The Durutti Column

Here are some photos of recent erosion at the North Beach. Thanks to the contributors...


12 February 2012: The shingle beach has been completely washed away


12 Feb 2012: Base of cliffs now completely exposed to wave action


Sunday 26 Feb 2012: An at-least 10-tonne segment of cliff fell from here this morning


26 Feb 2012: Boulders at old dump collapsed onto beach from protective rampart as a result of sea action


Sea eating into cliff behind protective rampart


How the sea action is eating in behind the rampart and attacking the old dump site

Langerland

GULP! :eek:

The Real B-man

I had no idea it was this Bad i havent being to the North Beach in Years this is Ridiculous the Beach is gone!

legrand

The Real B-man wrote: »

I had no idea it was this Bad i havent being to the North Beach in Years this is Ridiculous the Beach is gone!

Not denying there are erosion problems made worse by breakwater etc. But the beach is not gone ..yet (more below). Pics taken when tide was in.

Regarding rock armour installed. From other posts above it appears that that only 30% of the rocks in place. From memory the rock armour was to extend to the [former] Gap bridge location. We are in a lose lose situation here - pictures show erosion creeping in behind the rock armour. Guessing it is safe to assume same will occur further down the beach when (if) additional rock armour put in place.

What kills me however, is when the tide is in one cannot access that part of the beach where rocks are placed at all. If more rock armour placed then we expect best part of one third of the former beach to inaccessible when the tide is in. Not to mention the rock has destroyed the beach in terms of being an enjoyable amenity. :mad:

Fiachra2

legrand wrote: »

Not denying there are erosion problems made worse by breakwater etc. But the beach is not gone ..yet (more below). Pics taken when tide was in.

Regarding rock armour installed. From other posts above it appears that that only 30% of the rocks in place. From memory the rock armour was to extend to the [former] Gap bridge location. We are in a lose lose situation here - pictures show erosion creeping in behind the rock armour. Guessing it is safe to assume same will occur further down the beach when (if) additional rock armour put in place.

What kills me however, is when the tide is in one cannot access that part of the beach where rocks are placed at all. If more rock armour placed then we expect best part of one third of the former beach to inaccessible when the tide is in. Not to mention the rock has destroyed the beach in terms of being an enjoyable amenity. :mad:

Not quite correct.

The picture was taken with the tide at least 75% out In other words we weren't a million miles off low tide and a long way from high tide. I would guess that that section of the beach is now impassible at nearly all states of tide. (Its also probably dangerous because the boulders are unstable)

The full amount of rock armour was put in place. There was only to be rock armour in front of the dump. All other parts of the coastline were to be allowed to erode.

The GPDA (or rather their erosion expert) pointed out to WCC that this plan doesn't work. The laws of physics dictate that a solid barrier doesn't stop the wave action. It merely deflects it elsewhere. What this means is that it is to be expected that the cliff immediatly adjacent the the rock armour will erode rapidly (due to the deflection). This is now happening.

With regard to the coast up to the old gap bridge no rock armour was planned but an initial quantity of shingle protection was to be put in place and then (each year if necessary) additional shingle was to be put on the beach as the old stuff washed away.
What actually happened was that only 30% of the initial quantity was put in place (and it washed away) and nothing further has been done.
Hence the dramatic erosion.

As I have said here folks on a few occasions before if you feel strongly about this contact your local public representatives. They dont operate in a vaccum and if you dont tell them they wont know! Im not saying dont post here but contact them instead but if you want to get anything done about this it needs to be addressed by the public reps.