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

Maudi

HappyDaze007 wrote: »

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..!

Thats up towards the three trout river..yes I saw those huge concrete barriers exposed too..isint the sea very close to the tracks..?I give one or two years erosion at the same rate and that section of track is in trouble.

HappyDaze007

Maudi wrote: »

Thats up towards the three trout river..yes I saw those huge concrete barriers exposed too..isint the sea very close to the tracks..?I give one or two years erosion at the same rate and that section of track is in trouble.

Yes I noticed the path way was washed away up to the rail way fence, Those "Rocks in wire mesh" have subsided, I'm not sure if they are sea defenses or ballast for the railway... Time will tell I guess..

gibbon6

The following was included in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the harbour development. It was clear back in 2006 that the construction of the two breakwaters with a rock revetment would destroy the North Beach and result in accellerated erosion of the cliffs. Despite this expert evidence Bord Pleanala granted permission. Just goes to show how corrupt the Irish Planning System was to the core during the Celtic Tiger Bubble era of the naughties.


COWI Hydraulic Studies and Coastal Morphology Appendix VI Coastal Modelling Report - Coastline evolution, Scenario 3: New development with reference design coastal defences (rock revetment)

The impact of the rock revetment on the foreshore at Greystones North Beach is described as follows by COWI A/S in EIS Appendix VI “Coastal Modelling Report”, Hydraulic Studies and Coastal Morphology, on page 66:
“The presence of the revetment would result in loss of sediments in front of the structure, and consequently a deepening until the equilibrium water depth is arrived at. The beach would disappear with the revetment face acting as a breakwater front at this debt water.”
The impact of the rock revetment on the foreshore at Greystones North Beach is summarised as follows by COWI A/S in EIS Appendix VI “Coastal Modelling Report”, Hydraulic Studies and Coastal Morphology on page 69:
“For the new harbour scenario with revetments along the coast to protect the CPO area (but no structures outside of that area) the following is concluded:

• Revetments will sooner or later lead to loss of beach in front of the structures, at some stretches it is lost very quickly
• There will be an accelerated erosion area north of the revetments, worsening the erosion compared to the do-nothing scenario.
• The accelerated retreat north of the CPO area is comparable to that for the new harbour without any protective measures. However, a revetment also leads to the loss of foreshore
• The loss to the north is around 7,000 m3/yr in the beginning, decreasing over the years to some 4,000 m3/year after 10 years.
• The Reference Design is not beneficial to the northern part of the bay, and will require additional nourishment in this area on top of the construction cost and loss of beach
• Storm simulation shows that erosion exhibits a peak just north of revetment with a considerable erosion of up to 2.5m.”

EIS COWI Hydraulic Studies and Coastal Morphology, Section 3.7 Appendix VI (Page 66)

loyatemu

Maudi wrote: »

Thats up towards the three trout river..yes I saw those huge concrete barriers exposed too..isint the sea very close to the tracks..?I give one or two years erosion at the same rate and that section of track is in trouble.

CIE have been battling the sea along that section of track for decades. I'd imagine they'll eventually put more rock armour along there.

Maudi

loyatemu wrote: »

CIE have been battling the sea along that section of track for decades. I'd imagine they'll eventually put more rock armour along there.

And as an aside whats with the im sure new fence running all the way along the track on the sea side...between the sea and resilient kids making short cuts it seems a bit of a waste of money.

loyatemu

Maudi wrote: »

And as an aside whats with the im sure new fence running all the way along the track on the sea side...between the sea and resilient kids making short cuts it seems a bit of a waste of money.

preventing trespass onto the railway I guess.

recedite

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.

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

I think the fence is just over 3m high, and if you look in the two photos at the long straight section of fence, beyond the angle where it changes direction slightly, its clear that there was a enough ground to walk on (unsafely!) and the width of that ground was roughly equal to the height of the fence. Now the cliff edge is at the fence. So that is 3-4 metres in 12 months along that stretch.

F3

recedite wrote: »

I think the fence is just over 3m high, and if you look in the two photos at the long straight section of fence, beyond the angle where it changes direction slightly, its clear that there was a enough ground to walk on (unsafely!) and the width of that ground was roughly equal to the height of the fence. Now the cliff edge is at the fence. So that is 3-4 metres in 12 months along that stretch.

Go to Google Earth, and take a measure, the photo is July 2013, and measures 4m+ on the ground

Jimjay

Just watching a report on sky news about uk cliff erosion.
Showed a beach with soft cliffs like greystones north beach and they said normal erosion is about 15-25cm per year but due to storms over last 12 months it has lost 3 meters in the last year and after the recent storms the beach is 2 meters deeper in sand. There does not appear to be any new harbours or developments built which caused this.

gibbon6

Jimjay wrote: »

Just watching a report on sky news about uk cliff erosion.
Showed a beach with soft cliffs like greystones north beach and they said normal erosion is about 15-25cm per year but due to storms over last 12 months it has lost 3 meters in the last year and after the recent storms the beach is 2 meters deeper in sand. There does not appear to be any new harbours or developments built which caused this.

The impact of greatly increasing the erosion on Greystones North Beach and cliffs from the new breakwaters was covered in great detail in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Wicklow County Council by experts. To mitigate this impact Sispar were supposed to place 30k cubic metres of capital beach nourishment followed by 6k per annum thereafter. Sispar have failed to comply with this requirement. The result is unprecedented erosion of the cliffs (4 metres in 7 months alone) and a lowering of the beach by over 6 feet since 2008. Sispar have been grossly negligent in this failure and should now forfeit their Foreshore Licence.

LEIN

I wonder if Iarnród Éireann know the rate of erosion?

Jimjay

gibbon6 wrote: »

The impact of greatly increasing the erosion on Greystones North Beach and cliffs from the new breakwaters was covered in great detail in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Wicklow County Council by experts. To mitigate this impact Sispar were supposed to place 30k cubic metres of capital beach nourishment followed by 6k per annum thereafter. Sispar have failed to comply with this requirement. The result is unprecedented erosion of the cliffs (4 metres in 7 months alone) and a lowering of the beach by over 6 feet since 2008. Sispar have been grossly negligent in this failure and should now forfeit their Foreshore Licence.

Yes thanks, i have read the thread and this has been posted numerous times.
I am no denying the information you have stated.

If sispar have been negligent (which seems to be the case as everyone on this forum says so) and if they have broken rules of the planning permision then why have they not been prosecuted? surely this has nothing to do with wicklow council anymore (who if they have allowed sispar to be negligent are also negligent) then why hasn't legal proceedings taken place or government enquiries been held? Its alright everyone repeating themselves here but why is nothing being done about it? If any of us broke planning laws we would be in big trouble. I wish someone would explain why nobody has been held accountable rather than everyone saying they should be.

BTW where did you get the rate of erosion information? is this quoting what other people have posted or has there been an official report. Some people say 2-3 meters you say 4 meters, some say the official way of measuring the erosion is to draw a line on google earth, or look at two photos and work out if you could have walked between the fence and the cliff, has this report also documented what the erosion would have been over the past 7 months if the development did not take place, bearing in mind we have had the worst weather for many years. What was the erosion rate during a comparable period of heavy rain and wind storms before the harbour was built? If other cliffs and beaches are having the same amount of erosion over the last 7 months without any developments altering the tide how can it be proven that the storms would not have done the same here?

F3

gibbon6 wrote: »

The impact of greatly increasing the erosion on Greystones North Beach and cliffs from the new breakwaters was covered in great detail in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Wicklow County Council by experts. To mitigate this impact Sispar were supposed to place 30k cubic metres of capital beach nourishment followed by 6k per annum thereafter. Sispar have failed to comply with this requirement. The result is unprecedented erosion of the cliffs (4 metres in 7 months alone) and a lowering of the beach by over 6 feet since 2008. Sispar have been grossly negligent in this failure and should now forfeit their Foreshore Licence.

30,000 cubic metres, try and visualise how big this 'Dyke' would have been.......

Imagine taking 6 fork lift pallets and nailing them together to build a perfect cube, the cube would be about half the size of small car......

Put 800 of these cubes side by side, stack them 5 high and 7.5 deep

that is what Sisk should have placed on completion of the breakwaters almost 4 years ago,

Sisk didn't. they placed less than a third, which was useless because it had no mass,

Then add 6000 + of these cubes every year to replace the washed away part of the big 'Dyke'

Sisk didn't [at all].....

F3

Jimjay wrote: »

Yes thanks, i have read the thread and this has been posted numerous times.
I am no denying the information you have stated.

If sispar have been negligent (which seems to be the case as everyone on this forum says so) and if they have broken rules of the planning permision then why have they not been prosecuted? surely this has nothing to do with wicklow council anymore (who if they have allowed sispar to be negligent are also negligent) then why hasn't legal proceedings taken place or government enquiries been held? Its alright everyone repeating themselves here but why is nothing being done about it? If any of us broke planning laws we would be in big trouble. I wish someone would explain why nobody has been held accountable rather than everyone saying they should be.

BTW where did you get the rate of erosion information? is this quoting what other people have posted or has there been an official report. Some people say 2-3 meters you say 4 meters, some say the official way of measuring the erosion is to draw a line on google earth, or look at two photos and work out if you could have walked between the fence and the cliff, has this report also documented what the erosion would have been over the past 7 months bearing in mind we have had the worst weather for many years. What was the erosion rate during a comparable period of heavy rain and wind storms before the harbour was built? If other cliffs and beaches are having the same amount of erosion over the last 7 months without any developments altering the tide how can it be proven that the storms would not have done the same here?

Three days ago you could not walk between the fence and the cliff [about 100mm left]

Google Earth, last satellite photo July 2013 go measure it with the yellow measure yourself, I measure at a minimum 4m and a max 7-8m

i've compared the google scale measure on a Cost-X software programme and its very accurate

Jimjay

F3 wrote: »

Three days ago you could not walk between the fence and the cliff [about 100mm left]

Google Earth, last satellite photo July 2013 go measure it with the yellow measure yourself, I measure at a minimum 4m and a max 7-8m

i've compared the google scale measure on a Cost-X software programme and its very accurate

Absolutely there is no denying the erosion (would have been nice to have a proper monitoring of it since the development began) or had some official measurements.

Have sispar broken any laws? and if so have wicklow cc and the planning department? Why have they no been made to put the protection in place if this was in fact part of the planning approval? is there a loophole, is there really a rule that says they had to or has no one made them?

F3

Jimjay wrote: »

Yes thanks, i have read the thread and this has been posted numerous times.

1) why have they not been prosecuted?

2) surely this has nothing to do with wicklow council anymore

3) why hasn't legal proceedings taken place

4) or government enquiries been held?

I've take your points and separated them into 1,2,3,4


1: prosecuted by who? and who will pay for the legal proceedings?
2: Yes it has
3: taken by who? and who will pay for the legal proceedings?
4: NOW THIS IS A GREAT QUESTION!!!!

Jimjay

F3 wrote: »

Jimjay wrote: »

Yes thanks, i have read the thread and this has been posted numerous times.

1) why have they not been prosecuted?

2) surely this has nothing to do with wicklow council anymore

3) why hasn't legal proceedings taken place

4) or government enquiries been held?




I've take your points and separated them into 1,2,3,4

1: prosecuted by who? and who will pay for the legal proceedings?
2: Yes it has
3: taken by who? and who will pay for the legal proceedings?
4: NOW THIS IS A GREAT QUESTION!!!!

Thank you. it gets a bit tedious when every post just repeats how bad the erosion is and how negligent sispar and wcc are without actually doing anything about it.

1. if i broke planning laws who would prosecute me and who would pay? (have planning laws been broken?)
2. i meant if wicklow cc has allowed sispar to be negligent then have they not become negligent themselves? if so then has this not gone above them? who holds wicklow cc accountable, the government?
3. sort of a mix of 1 and 2 :-)
4. is there an online petition in ireland like in the UK and US where if enough people sign it it has to be discussed in government? or could we do one anyway and take it to central government?

F3

Jimjay wrote: »

Thank you. it gets a bit tedious when every post just repeats how bad the erosion is and how negligent sispar and wcc are without actually doing anything about it.

1. if i broke planning laws who would prosecute me and who would pay? (have planning laws been broken?)
2. i meant if wicklow cc has allowed sispar to be negligent then have they not become negligent themselves? if so then has this not gone above them? who holds wicklow cc accountable, the government?
3. sort of a mix of 1 and 2 :-)
4. is there an online petition in ireland like in the UK and US where if enough people sign it it has to be discussed in government? or could we do one anyway and take it to central government?

1. Your upset neighbour, and if he won you'd pay his costs, and if you won he would pay yours, but in the mean time you would both pay your costs as you would go along.

2. Yes they have. But the thing is they have the power under the contract to give latitude to Sisk but have they the right? I say absolutely NO, the community of Greystones suffer by the project stalling for years. So the question is who sticks up for Greystones? [one would have hoped for the elected representatives but they collectively have not]

3. I know [just bugg'n you!]

4. Apparently Stephen Donnelly and perhaps Simon Harris will bring this to CENTRAL GOVERNMENT very soon. [we hope]

clocha_liatha

Jimjay wrote: »

Just watching a report on sky news about uk cliff erosion.
Showed a beach with soft cliffs like greystones north beach and they said normal erosion is about 15-25cm per year but due to storms over last 12 months it has lost 3 meters in the last year and after the recent storms the beach is 2 meters deeper in sand. There does not appear to be any new harbours or developments built which caused this.

all the more reason for sisk then to get their act together and do what they are contractrally obliged to do and do something to offset this.
its "supposed" to be a joint venture between wicklow county council and the developers , it looks though as only one party has any say in this so called patrnership.

Annasopra

F3/JIMJAY
I edited your posts just to fix the quotes parts because they were messed up.

Maudi

F3 wrote: »

1. Your upset neighbour, and if he won you'd pay his costs, and if you won he would pay yours, but in the mean time you would both pay your costs as you would go along.

2. Yes they have. But the thing is they have the power under the contract to give latitude to Sisk but have they the right? I say absolutely NO, the community of Greystones suffer by the project stalling for years. So the question is who sticks up for Greystones? [one would have hoped for the elected representatives but they collectively have not]

3. I know [just bugg'n you!]

4. Apparently Stephen Donnelly and perhaps Simon Harris will bring this to CENTRAL GOVERNMENT very soon. [we hope]

"Apparently" "perhaps" "very soon" "we hope" ...what exactly have messers donnelly and harris achieved so far in this fiasco..

F3

Maudi wrote: »

"Apparently" "perhaps" "very soon" "we hope" ...what exactly have messers donnelly and harris achieved so far in this fiasco..

Nothing

F3

But I hope, perhaps they will do something soon

F3

http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fguboh.podomatic.com%2Fentry%2F2014-02-19T03_07_56-08_00&h=nAQG4cEi0&enc=AZMxBRIJQmKGvfn360k0KpRD15ump6Kz-U-QIkBoWXyCiR2yW6YBsXedhG-KwI6PnqnLBiczXJE5kLV0z6OLXSTG&s=1


This about sums it up where we are..........

F3

We only have ourselves to blame if this fool is voted back in..........

legrand

F3 wrote: »

http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fguboh.podomatic.com%2Fentry%2F2014-02-19T03_07_56-08_00&h=nAQG4cEi0&enc=AZMxBRIJQmKGvfn360k0KpRD15ump6Kz-U-QIkBoWXyCiR2yW6YBsXedhG-KwI6PnqnLBiczXJE5kLV0z6OLXSTG&s=1


This about sums it up where we are..........

Enough to make you weep..

F3

legrand wrote: »

Enough to make you weep..

In fairness I see Cllr. Mitchell has identified nearly €500,000 that can be given back to the community!!! which is very welcome thank you! We should give it to the tidy towns committee as a sinking fund for all future great work that they do

Zoo4m8

Hell must be starting to freeze, I'm thanking f3!! And tidy towns have been given a nod as well, all good!

F3

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Hell must be starting to freeze, I'm thanking f3!! And tidy towns have been given a nod as well, all good!

Derek in his wisdom has essentially excused Sisk from placing beach sand on the inner beach of the harbour. This was costed at €43,000 in the community plan and one of the few costs agreed to by Sisk.

Sisk were obligated not only to place it but to replenish it over the 30 years. Calculating, that a total replacement [realistically] every three years due to wash out from storms and spring tides etc is about right, which is €430,000.

If not sought then this will be a total saving or super profit to Sisk and whoever, if they are allowed not carry out this work, as Derek has stated.

So it absolutely should go back to the community, and why not the tidy towns??

F3

I think we should all thank him.