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

gibbon6

F3 wrote: »

It was a specific condition of the foreshore licence

It was a condition of planning

It was in the Environmental Protection Plan

It was warned by the Department of the Marine that it was a significant commitment by Sisk and Wicklow County Council.

There were to place 30,000 cubic metres of shingle knows as 'capital' when the break water was complete. This was a huge Dyke. It would have cost €750,000.

This was not done. They placed 10,000 cubic metres for €250,000

A saving of €500,000

They were then to add what ever it takes to ensure that the historical rate of retreat was not increased. I see on the video this was upto 6000 cubic metres every year or €150,000

This has not been done for 4 years, a saving of €600,000

What they did do was move 6000 cubic metres ( so they say) of shingle that had built up naturally at the new cove. But guess what, THEY ARE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM DOING JUST THAT.

This is about money money money money.

By not doing what they are required to do, they have saved in hard cash

€1,100,000

Wicklow County Councillors have allowed them to do this despite the greystones people begging begging begging the local Councillors to do something about it.

Who has the money?

Why can they not be brought to justice for this horrendous rape to our natural environment caused by their breakwater structure? They surely have breached every rule in the book.

Nail on the head F3. This is all about the money. I am shocked at the destruction of our foreshore.:mad:

Maudi

gibbon6 wrote: »

Nail on the head F3. This is all about the money. I am shocked at the destruction of our foreshore.:mad:

It gets worse..ive just been down the other end ..south beach...I walked down as far as the three trout stream...as I often have however the coastal erosion here too has accelerated. .in some stretches the waves are level with and no more than p'raps 15 foot from the tracks.and its not even stormy today.I made a prediction about the dargle river works running into problems and coming to a halt..came true...heres another one..I predict within two years c.i.e or whoever runs the trains will have to do major coastal protection or the tracks will be breached..i dont know of anywhere else in the world where track is so close to the sea..

Jimjay

Maudi wrote: »

.i dont know of anywhere else in the world where track is so close to the sea..

There are loads of tracks by the sea.
This one in Devon UK has been on the news a lot recently

pixbyjohn

http://www.garlandconsultancy.com/our-projects/infrastructure/costal-protection-works.html

Jimjay

pixbyjohn wrote: »

http://www.garlandconsultancy.com/our-projects/infrastructure/costal-protection-works.html

That was completed in 2007 john

pixbyjohn

Jimjay wrote: »

That was completed in 2007 john

Yes I know.
For the past several decades there has been anti erosion works on the railway line. I remember as a child travelling to Wicklow from Greystones and it appeared that the line was actually in the sea because there was so much water on the land side of the railway.
There used to be gangs of railway workers continuously building up rock armour and caged stones to keep the sea out.

F3

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Yes I know.
For the past several decades there has been anti erosion works on the railway line. I remember as a child travelling to Wicklow from Greystones and it appeared that the line was actually in the sea because there was so much water on the land side of the railway.
There used to be gangs of railway workers continuously building up rock armour and caged stones to keep the sea out.

Yes John I too remember when ASCON carried out the coastal protection works, within a year we witnessed unprecedented beach migration as a direct result.

That why 'the mens' silts up for periods of time.

The point being made here, is that the accelerated severe erosion was predicted post breakwater completion at the new harbour, it was planned for, approvals and licenses were given on the basis that controlled erosion protection would be carried out.

It has not.

And Wicklow County Council have turned a blind eye.

We do not want start a thread that erosion has always been bad along the east coast.

That dilutes the matter at hand.

These people must be brought to task, what is done is done, going forward it must be done correctly, and as for the damage already done,

the Town Must be compensated......

pixbyjohn

F3 wrote: »

We do not want start a thread that erosion has always been bad along the east coast.
That dilutes the matter at hand. [/B]

OK

fat-tony

Took a walk up the North Beach and here's a shot from the fence above the rock armour. Parts of the drainage pipes at the edge of the fence are now on the beach. Fence will follow shortly, I think, especially if we have any more storms. The beach itself has been stripped of its shingle by the wave action and now the tide can come right in to the base of the sand/clay cliffs.

pixbyjohn

North Beach 17th Feb 2013 (1) by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

gibbon6

fat-tony wrote: »

Took a walk up the North Beach and here's a shot from the fence above the rock armour. Parts of the drainage pipes at the edge of the fence are now on the beach. Fence will follow shortly, I think, especially if we have any more storms. The beach itself has been stripped of its shingle by the wave action and now the tide can come right in to the base of the sand/clay cliffs.

What a shambles. There once was a beach here but alas no more.

fat-tony

Another one today - similar viewpoint to yours, John

HappyDaze007

The recent storms have all come from the south west...
Can you imagine the damage that would be caused if one came from any easterly direction...

Something needs to be done and done quick...

fat-tony

The erosion on this stretch of the beach seems to have been a couple of feet in parts since last year. There have been a number of south-easterly gales, one in the past couple of days. High waves crashing on the cliffs will take away a lot of material very quickly as they are just sandy and sticky clay at the base.

F3

This is criminal....

fat-tony

Well, it's nature, actually.

Actual cause and effect would need to be determined more scientifically. Those cliffs have been eroding for a long time. Perhaps the marina works have speeded up the process, but the cliff walk fence has had to be moved steadily inland over the years, way before the marina works were started.

legrand

fat-tony wrote: »

Well, it's nature, actually.

Actual cause and effect would need to be determined more scientifically. Those cliffs have been eroding for a long time. Perhaps the marina works have speeded up the process, but the cliff walk fence has had to be moved steadily inland over the years, way before the marina works were started.

If I recall correctly the "official" estimate for rate of erosion is half a meter a year (open to correction there) but I would estimate that at least 3 meters have been lost on that stretch between Rock armor to Gap bridge in past 2 years.

I have no doubt harbour works has exacerbated erosion along this stretch. I am conflicted though - additional rock armor (EIS condition) will render that that part of the beach largely inaccessible at mid-high tide. I recognise this argument as been put forward by Mitchell (on behalf of Sisk) also - although it is clear for reasons of cost and not any concern for aesthetic or access.

Wonder are there are other methods of coastal protection that might work - again I understand that we have land side erosion but what about those methods where we have rock armor extending out to sea (like fingers - sorry for poor description but you get the idea).

pixbyjohn

legrand wrote: »

Wonder are there are other methods of coastal protection that might work - again I understand that we have land side erosion but what about those methods where we have rock armor extending out to sea (like fingers - sorry for poor description but you get the idea).

That type of rock armour appears to be working well in Bray at the northern end of the promenade

gibbon6

legrand wrote: »

If I recall correctly the "official" estimate for rate of erosion is half a meter a year (open to correction there) but I would estimate that at least 3 meters have been lost on that stretch between Rock armor to Gap bridge in past 2 years.

I have no doubt harbour works has exacerbated erosion along this stretch. I am conflicted though - additional rock armor (EIS condition) will render that that part of the beach largely inaccessible at mid-high tide. I recognise this argument as been put forward by Mitchell (on behalf of Sisk) also - although it is clear for reasons of cost and not any concern for aesthetic or access.

Wonder are there are other methods of coastal protection that might work - again I understand that we have land side erosion but what about those methods where we have rock armor extending out to sea (like fingers - sorry for poor description but you get the idea).

Under the planning conditions for the Greystones Harbour Development PPP Sisks are supposed to be placing beach nourishing material on the beach. They are obliged to do this over 30 years. They have not and have been allowed to get away with it by Wicklow County Council and its councillors. If Sisks are insolvent and unable to fulfill their contractual obligations the contract should be determined by Wicklow County Council immediately.

F3

gibbon6 wrote: »

Under the planning conditions for the Greystones Harbour Development PPP Sisks are supposed to be placing beach nourishing material on the beach. They are obliged to do this over 30 years. They have not and have been allowed to get away with it by Wicklow County Council and its councillors. If Sisks are insolvent and unable to fulfill their contractual obligations the contract should be determined by Wicklow County Council immediately.

And Wicklow County Council are obligated to continue with the controlled erosion after the 30 year concession is over, so this will be c€150,000 p.a. contingent liability for WCC.

fat-tony

legrand wrote: »

If I recall correctly the "official" estimate for rate of erosion is half a meter a year (open to correction there) but I would estimate that at least 3 meters have been lost on that stretch between Rock armor to Gap bridge in past 2 years.

I have no doubt harbour works has exacerbated erosion along this stretch. I am conflicted though - additional rock armor (EIS condition) will render that that part of the beach largely inaccessible at mid-high tide. I recognise this argument as been put forward by Mitchell (on behalf of Sisk) also - although it is clear for reasons of cost and not any concern for aesthetic or access.

Wonder are there are other methods of coastal protection that might work - again I understand that we have land side erosion but what about those methods where we have rock armor extending out to sea (like fingers - sorry for poor description but you get the idea).

If you compare John's photo from Feb 2013 and mine taken from the same point today, you will see that there is nothing like 3 metres lost from the top of the fenced section - more like the half metre "official" estimate you quote. The rock armour placed in front of the dump has made access difficult along the beachfront (maybe ok at low tide, impossible at mid-tide today). Better the rock armour there then have the contents of the dump spilling into the sea. The only way to protect the sand cliffs would be to place rock armour all along the beach (or dump huge quantities of shingle/sand). Rock armour could prevent access and shingle/sand would be washed away in storms, requiring constant replenishment. But erosion of those cliffs has been a constant all the years I've walked on that beach. For me the most noticeable effect is at the Gap Bridge, which was removed a couple of years ago and now there is now no access from The Grove because the "ramps" have been eroded and there is now a sheer drop.

fat-tony

gibbon6 wrote: »

Under the planning conditions for the Greystones Harbour Development PPP Sisks are supposed to be placing beach nourishing material on the beach. They are obliged to do this over 30 years. They have not and have been allowed to get away with it by Wicklow County Council and its councillors. If Sisks are insolvent and unable to fulfill their contractual obligations the contract should be determined by Wicklow County Council immediately.

Definitely agree that WCC need to come out with a public statement and state what is going to be done to tackle the erosion issue.

gibbon6

fat-tony wrote: »

If you compare John's photo from Feb 2013 and mine taken from the same point today, you will see that there is nothing like 3 metres lost from the top of the fenced section - more like the half metre "official" estimate you quote. The rock armour placed in front of the dump has made access difficult along the beachfront (maybe ok at low tide, impossible at mid-tide today). Better the rock armour there then have the contents of the dump spilling into the sea. The only way to protect the sand cliffs would be to place rock armour all along the beach (or dump huge quantities of shingle/sand). Rock armour could prevent access and shingle/sand would be washed away in storms, requiring constant replenishment. But erosion of those cliffs has been a constant all the years I've walked on that beach. For me the most noticeable effect is at the Gap Bridge, which was removed a couple of years ago and now there is now no access from The Grove because the "ramps" have been eroded and there is now a sheer drop.

Beach nourishment is the method of erosion management contracted for by Sispar in the EIS for planning to Bord Pleanala. Wicklow County Council and our negligent county councillors have turned a blind eye to this failure of Sispar to comply with planning requirement. It would be outrageous if they are not compelled to place beach nourishment material on the beach.

fat-tony

gibbon6 wrote: »

Beach nourishment is the method of erosion management contracted for by Sispar in the EIS for planning to Bord Pleanala. Wicklow County Council and our negligent county councillors have turned a blind eye to this failure of Sispar to comply with planning requirement. It would be outrageous if they are not compelled to place beach nourishment material on the beach.

I agree with you 100% - WCC need to get their collective a***s into gear and come out with a plan to ensure the planning conditions are met.

F3

fat-tony wrote: »

- more like the half metre "official" estimate you quote.

I'm not sure which photo you see only half a metre in 1 year? go to Google Earth, the photo was taken on 12th July 2013 and use the measurement tool. From the point that is almost to the fence line today measures 4m+ of erosion in 7 months.

HappyDaze007

fat-tony wrote: »

The erosion on this stretch of the beach seems to have been a couple of feet in parts since last year. There have been a number of south-easterly gales, one in the past couple of days. High waves crashing on the cliffs will take away a lot of material very quickly as they are just sandy and sticky clay at the base.

Just a quick note,
All storms since Christmas have come in from the Atlantic, coming in from the south west on the storm track helped with the jet stream.
(strong wind may have come from the south for a while)
If we were to get a blocking front that would stall the jet steam and allow a strong easterly to come in, and what with the tidal surge then the cliffs would be no more.

Thankfully after next weekend the weather seams to be settling down, but that doesn't make the problem go away.

fat-tony

I agree that we haven't had any of the conventional easterlies this winter but a number of the storm depressions from the Atlantic have tracked across the north and brought very violent south easterlies, albeit short lived. The storm on the 13th was a case in point. Any significant wave action coming in across the flat North Beach will quickly erode the base of the cliffs.
Whatever the cause, the only way to prevent the waves eroding the cliffs is to stop them getting there. If this means depositing more rock armour or huge quantities of shingle (which will have to be renewed after storms) there will be a price to pay in regard to access. Even at the moment, you have to scramble over large boulders to get on to the North Beach. They are bigger than they look in this photo from yesterday (15th)

gibbon6

fat-tony wrote: »

Whatever the cause, the only way to prevent the waves eroding the cliffs is to stop them getting there. If this means depositing more rock armour or huge quantities of shingle (which will have to be renewed after storms) there will be a price to pay in regard to access. Even at the moment, you have to scramble over large boulders to get on to the North Beach. They are bigger than they look in this photo from yesterday (15th)

We all know that the cause of the disappearance of the North Beach and the unprecedented erosion on the cliffs is down to the two new harbour breakwaters at Greystones Harbour. Under contract and planning conditions Sispar are supposed to be putting beach nourishment material (shingle) on the beach to mitigate against this. They have patently failed to do so, probably for financial cost saving reasons. Their inaction has had huge consequences to the foreshore at the north beach. They are negligently in breach of the planning conditions applying to this development and the conditions applying to the Foreshore Licence granted for this development. Their negligence should now result in the immediate termination of their Licence with the entire development taken back into public ownership by the State.

Maudi

gibbon6 wrote: »

We all know that the cause of the disappearance of the North Beach and the unprecedented erosion on the cliffs is down to the two new harbour breakwaters at Greystones Harbour. Under contract and planning conditions Sispar are supposed to be putting beach nourishment material (shingle) on the beach to mitigate against this. They have patently failed to do so, probably for financial cost saving reasons. Their inaction has had huge consequences to the foreshore at the north beach. They are negligently in breach of the planning conditions applying to this development and the conditions applying to the Foreshore Licence granted for this development. Their negligence should now result in the immediate termination of their Licence with the entire development taken back into public ownership by the State.

Have they even got a harbour licence? Where can it be seen?should have been revoked suspended or quashed until they finish that harbour to at least an agreed safe standard fit for purpose.

HappyDaze007

Has anyone seen the damage done on the south beach...?

Walked up to the river from the car park and noticed a good deal of damage done to the beach up towards the river..
A concrete barrier that I've never seen before because the amount of sand the sea has taken out.. Mad..!