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

Maudi · 20-02-2014 12:41am

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 · 20-02-2014 12:51am

Maudi wrote: »

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

Nothing

F3 · 20-02-2014 12:52am

But I hope, perhaps they will do something soon

F3 · 20-02-2014 12:55am

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 · 20-02-2014 12:59am

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

legrand · 20-02-2014 10:33am

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 · 20-02-2014 6:32pm

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 · 20-02-2014 7:17pm

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

F3 · 20-02-2014 8:24pm

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 · 20-02-2014 8:26pm

I think we should all thank him.

legrand · 24-02-2014 9:56am

Walked North Beach at weekend. Had not been down since the storms and find beach effectively inaccessable at mid to high tide. Even the rock armor has been striped of smaller rocks/stones making it difficult for some and impossible for most to traverse. Assuming you get that far you then have a 4 or 5 meter scramble to get the beach level.

Further on, the foundations of the Gap bridge are now exposed and the outflow pipe prototrudes some meters out at height of about 3-4 meters from beach level (I recall that pipe being about a meter off the ground when the Gap bridge was intact).

Please be mindful of the tides - I had to make a hasty retreat from a point beyond the Gap bridge (new name?- 'sludge hill') when a series of waves came within a few meters of the cliff base.

Fiachra2 · 26-02-2014 8:20am

From looking at it last Sunday and checking the (admittedly slightly contrary) tide app on my phone, I would say it is only accessible for about a couple of hours each side low tide now.

legrand · 07-03-2014 9:59am

A lot of truck movements down Darcy's Field way. Last weekend a digger created a shallow trench more or less parallel with shore between 10-20 metres in land. Looked like possible prep works possibly related to moving the fencing inland. Might get a chance to look closer over the weekend - anyone else please feel to comment.

Now why would they move fencing in by 20 meters?
1. That should last a couple of years before erosion forces another change
2. If that is the case then no immediate plans for coastal protection (armour or nourishment).

Here's a thought.
As it stands there is no access to the North beach accept at low tide (and this in itself is unacceptable on a number of fronts - please have local candidates justify that). The current situation has arisen due to recent storms having lowered the beach level by at least 2-3 meters in and around the rock armour (rocks would also appear to have been shifted toward the sea preventing beach access further).

The Beach level should rise again although not clear how long that will take - but that aside, if we assume WCC/Sisk do place rock armour in line with current setup and same extends to where the Gap bridge was - I personally don't this is a good plan. In effect that entire stretch of beach between the Gap bridge and harbour will be lost. (As I write I'm reminded of those days when I could swim at any point from the Gap bridge back up as far Sweeneys).

This is the controversial bit..
Remove coastline to a depth of ~10-15meters (maybe use the all that soil to fill in the large hole excavated in Darcy's) on that stretch to the Gap bridge and step back the Armour. This setup should therefore mean that at least that section of the North beach remains a beach and one that remains accessible. I'd rather this than a poorly maintained field masquerading‎ as a park (if they won't maintain the Burnaby Park or St Crispin cell why on earth should we believe WCC would ever maintain a park near the beach?).

Jimjay · 07-03-2014 10:24am

legrand wrote: »

A lot of truck movements down Darcy's Field way. Last weekend a digger created a shallow trench more or less parallel with shore between 10-20 metres in land. Looked like possible prep works possibly related to moving the fencing inland. Might get a chance to look closer over the weekend - anyone else please feel to comment.

Now why would they move fencing in by 20 meters?
1. That should last a couple of years before erosion forces another change
2. If that is the case then no immediate plans for coastal protection (armour or nourishment).

Here's a thought.
As it stands there is no access to the North beach accept at low tide (and this in itself is unacceptable on a number of fronts - please have local candidates justify that). The current situation has arisen due to recent storms having lowered the beach level by at least 2-3 meters in and around the rock armour (rocks would also appear to have been shifted toward the sea preventing beach access further).

The Beach level should rise again although not clear how long that will take - but that aside, if we assume WCC/Sisk do place rock armour in line with current setup and same extends to where the Gap bridge was - I personally don't this is a good plan. In effect that entire stretch of beach between the Gap bridge and harbour will be lost. (As I write I'm reminded of those days when I could swim at any point from the Gap bridge back up as far Sweeneys).

This is the controversial bit..
Remove coastline to a depth of ~10-15meters (maybe use the all that soil to fill in the large hole excavated in Darcy's) on that stretch to the Gap bridge and step back the Armour. This setup should therefore mean that at least that section of the North beach remains a beach and one that remains accessible. I'd rather this than a poorly maintained field masquerading‎ as a park (if they won't maintain the Burnaby Park or St Crispin cell why on earth should we believe WCC would ever maintain a park near the beach?).

Is this not in preparation for the beach nourishment / erosion measures that the developer said it had agreed to start a few days ago?

From this week until May approximately the mammoth task of seeding the North Beach to at least slow but hopefully prevent the continuous erosion that has been of great concern to Greystones residents http://www.greystonesguide.ie/tag/david-oreilly/

legrand · 07-03-2014 10:27am

^^^
oh? Did not hear about that! Where can I find that info/press release?

Jimjay · 07-03-2014 10:28am

legrand wrote: »

^^^
oh? Did not hear about that! Where can I find that info/press release?

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/tag/david-oreilly/

legrand · 07-03-2014 11:04am

Well, well

Taltos · 07-03-2014 12:14pm

Any coincidence the beach nourishment is happening now?

recedite · 07-03-2014 1:06pm

I don't think they will be too worried about the erosion along the proposed park and at the missing Gap Bridge. More likely the surveyors spotted on the Sisk site recently reported back that the site was shrinking alarmingly. They will want to preserve the site's integrity until after the apartments get built. Then the problem of the erosion will become an ongoing problem between the apartment's management company and WCC.
We'll see whereabouts they dump the gravel. I think it will be between the Sisk fence and the sea, not up at the Gap Bridge area.

loyatemu · 07-03-2014 1:25pm

can they not do it from the sea? Irish Rail did this when reinforcing Bray Head.

gibbon6 · 08-03-2014 1:26am

Jimjay wrote: »

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/tag/david-oreilly/

This is indeed a most bizarre and perplexing press release from would be blueshirt councilor David O'Reilly :mad:

He apparently had a chat with some un-named individual working for Sisks who he met while walking the beach. Who the hell is this mysterious individual and what authority does have in the Sisks power structure.

In this press release Mr O'Reilly talks about "seeding the North Beach" as if this is somehow good news. Are Sisks about to engage in a massif planting exercise to try and grow some kind of anti coastal erosion type plant life on the ruins of the north beach???

There is talk of a "huge number of truck movements" doing what he doesn't say. There is no mention of what these trucks will be carrying. Will Sisks be putting the capital beach nourishment of 20k cubic metres on the beach which should have been placed 5 years ago?

I am very unimpressed and perplexed by this unacceptable press release from Mr O'Reilly who really needs to get real and stop listening to the likes of the puddle man Derek Mitchell for his own good.

F3 · 08-03-2014 8:44am

gibbon6 wrote: »

This is indeed a most bizarre and perplexing press release from would be blueshirt councilor David O'Reilly :mad:

He apparently had a chat with some un-named individual working for Sisks who he met while walking the beach. Who the hell is this mysterious individual and what authority does have in the Sisks power structure.

In this press release Mr O'Reilly talks about "seeding the North Beach" as if this is somehow good news. Are Sisks about to engage in a massif planting exercise to try and grow some kind of anti coastal erosion type plant life on the ruins of the north beach???

There is talk of a "huge number of truck movements" doing what he doesn't say. There is no mention of what these trucks will be carrying. Will Sisks be putting the capital beach nourishment of 20k cubic metres on the beach which should have been placed 5 years ago?

I am very unimpressed and perplexed by this unacceptable press release from Mr O'Reilly who really needs to get real and stop listening to the likes of the puddle man Derek Mitchell for his own good.

And so the the circle of life perpetuates itself. A new generation of talk shops are born......

legrand · 10-03-2014 4:52pm

Taken Sunday 9th..

fat-tony · 10-03-2014 5:07pm

Dang - you beat me to it legrand :P Taken today between dodging trucks! Must have been 8 or 9 different trucks delivering aggregate.

recedite · 10-03-2014 8:59pm

Oh, quelle surprise!!
They are dumping all the gravel only between the Sisk site and the sea

fat-tony · 10-03-2014 9:22pm

Why the surprise? According to various earlier posts the beach "nourishment" is to extend only as far as the Gap Bridge. I'm assuming this is the initial beach nourishment:

5.5.1 Capital nourishment: It will be necessary to place some initial beach nourishment to minimise the impact of initial changes to the coastline during construction. It is proposed that 30,000 m3 will be placed during the construction of the breakwaters.

Presumably the Gap Bridge northwards will be done later? It's a start isn't it?

From the camera viewpoint in my prior photo there is only rock armour to the right which extends to the low water mark and behind the camera is the beach created by the extension of the rocks beyond the north breakwater. See this photo :

recedite · 10-03-2014 9:32pm

fat-tony wrote: »

Presumably the Gap Bridge northwards will be done later?

Don't hold your breath waiting for it

Maudi · 10-03-2014 9:53pm

legrand wrote: »

Taken Sunday 9th..

Wow.super pictures showing astonishing rate of erosion.

fat-tony · 10-03-2014 10:31pm

Maudi wrote: »

Wow.super pictures showing astonishing rate of erosion.

No - it's a photo showing what they are doing to try and combat the erosion;) Glass half-full time!

F3 · 10-03-2014 10:57pm

I'm truly happy to see action at last at the north beach. Tom Fortune told me that they are supposed to be dropping about 1000 loads [which is circa 8000 cubic metres]. I'd like to think that pressure from community groups like this have kicked WCC into action. Well done to all.....

gibbon6 · 11-03-2014 12:02am

So far all they seem to have done is build a type of a hard core road at the base of the rapidly eroding cliffs. However the material they are using is not the type of rounded shingle found on a natural beach used for recreational purposes. The type of stones they are supposed to nourish the beach with was covered in great detail at the second Bord Pleanala oral hearing in 2007. We all need to keep a very close eye on these scoundrels who will do whatever they can to value engineer a cheap and nasty solution to paper over the disaster their development has created.

fat-tony · 11-03-2014 12:06am

gibbon6 wrote: »

... The type of stones they are supposed to nourish the beach with was covered in great detail at the second Bord Pleanala oral hearing in 2007 ...

Have you got a link for that?

gibbon6 · 11-03-2014 11:02pm

fat-tony wrote: »

Have you got a link for that?

The following is an extract from the Bord Pleanala's Inspectors Report dated May 2007 available on their website which summarises statements made by the developer regarding beach nourishment material. Note that the beach nourishment material should match the current beach material.

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/EF2/REF2016B.pdf

In relation to obtaining suitable material for beach nourishment the developers investigated potential quarry sources including samples taken around Ireland and in Wales. It is intended to use material which matches the current beach material as closely as is practicable of the samples looked at. The Wicklow sample from Ballyhorsey would be the better match.

Some replenishment work was done on Bray seafront a few years ago. The material used there was dredged from the Codling Bank so it is pretty much the same material. The Ballyhorsey material is suitable as beach nourishment material. There is sufficient quantity available for the required 30 years of supply.

pixbyjohn · 14-03-2014 12:53am

North Beach, Greystones, 13/03/2014 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

legrand · 25-04-2014 9:24am

Over the last few days I notice more truck loads of 'nourishment' being deposited not on the beach but over the rock armour itself - pic below shows beginning of that -a lot more has been added this week).

The storms stripped out the rock armour - perhaps this is to reinstate some solidity (that a word?) and maybe even to 'nourish' lost beach front in front of
armour?

thoughts?

pixbyjohn wrote: »

North Beach, Greystones, 13/03/2014 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

recedite · 25-04-2014 9:39am

They are only trying to protect their site until the houses get built and sold. Nothing more. That green fence in the photo is their third fence; two others have already fallen into the sea, so that's about 4 metres already shaved off the site.

Its going to be an ongoing nightmare for future generations of people living there, trying to fight back the sea. Who will pay for ongoing works after Sisk have moved on? The residents? WCC? National government? Nobody?

Scientific climate predictions all agree on two things; rising sea levels and also increased storm frequency in the future.

Fiachra2 · 25-04-2014 12:31pm

The beach in front of the rock armour has, like the rest of the beach dropped dramatically in height. Hence you can no longer access the north beach except at low tide. Presumably they are now attempting to build up the beach to prevent the rock armour sliding downwards (which it has done at its northern end).

This is beginning to resemble the efforts of King Canute!

It is also noticeable that the "beach nourishment" they put in place a few weeks ago further north (see Johns photos) is disappearing rapidly. I didn't take any photos but I would guess 50% or more is gone at this stage. Maybe John can provide some before and after photos to illustrate?

gibbon6 · 26-04-2014 6:57am

Fiachra2 wrote: »

The beach in front of the rock armour has, like the rest of the beach dropped dramatically in height. Hence you can no longer access the north beach except at low tide. Presumably they are now attempting to build up the beach to prevent the rock armour sliding downwards (which it has done at its northern end).

This is beginning to resemble the efforts of King Canute!

It is also noticeable that the "beach nourishment" they put in place a few weeks ago further north (see Johns photos) is disappearing rapidly. I didn't take any photos but I would guess 50% or more is gone at this stage. Maybe John can provide some before and after photos to illustrate?

It's hardly surprising that most of the material has been washed away. It was from a quarry, not like the natural beach. The historical site at Rathdown is now at risk of destruction as the cliffs erode rapidly.

F3 · 26-04-2014 7:59am

I believe that they have their models wrong from the start. And I believe their secondary models were based upon their primary models which compounded the error.

My father-in-law, is in his 80's and in his youth was a local greystones fisherman, all his bothers were fishermen, and his father was a boat builder and fisherman, and he knows the waters around the tide like the back of his hand. I recently brought him up to see what has happened to the north beach, and he was horrified. He understand the ebb and flow of the local running tides and he said that the rock groin north of the pier is completely wrong. Never has their been scouring to the extend that he witnessed on the north beach. He said it's too late to do anything, the damage has been done. Any effort now is just lipstick on the gorilla.

LEIN · 27-04-2014 11:40am

recedite wrote: »

They are only trying to protect their site until the houses get built and sold. Nothing more. That green fence in the photo is their third fence; two others have already fallen into the sea, so that's about 4 metres already shaved off the site.

Its going to be an ongoing nightmare for future generations of people living there, trying to fight back the sea. Who will pay for ongoing works after Sisk have moved on? The residents? WCC? National government? Nobody?

Scientific climate predictions all agree on two things; rising sea levels and also increased storm frequency in the future.

Some tinfoil hats will be needed soon... :P

loyatemu · 27-04-2014 12:16pm

the planned houses & apartments are all behind the harbour though, aren't they? - the bit that's currently disintegrating is where the public park is supposed to go.

recedite · 27-04-2014 1:48pm

LEIN wrote: »

Some tinfoil hats will be needed soon... :P

Wellies, or even better, waders will be more useful

From the harbour up to approx. the old gap bridge is the site; that is everything behind the green fence. That is the part receiving King Canute's emergency sticking plaster solution.
Everything from the old gap bridge towards Bray head is being allowed to disintegrate. That is "the linear park".

loyatemu · 27-04-2014 9:20pm

recedite wrote: »

Wellies, or even better, waders will be more useful

From the harbour up to approx. the old gap bridge is the site; that is everything behind the green fence. That is the part receiving King Canute's emergency sticking plaster solution.
Everything from the old gap bridge towards Bray head is being allowed to disintegrate. That is "the linear park".

all the buildings seem to be behind the harbour in this image:
http://omparchitects.com/media/filer_public/2013/04/24/0509_aerial.jpg

gibbon6 · 27-04-2014 10:30pm

loyatemu wrote: »

all the buildings seem to be behind the harbour in this image:
http://omparchitects.com/media/filer_public/2013/04/24/0509_aerial.jpg

The northern end of the site is not protected by breakwaters and with a bad northerly storm the site could be inundated by the sea through this vulnerable area.

recedite · 27-04-2014 11:44pm

loyatemu wrote: »

all the buildings seem to be behind the harbour in this image:
http://omparchitects.com/media/filer_public/2013/04/24/0509_aerial.jpg

My mistake, you are right!

legrand · 23-05-2014 1:33pm

Will be interesting to see impact of today's strong easterlies on North Beach. My guess is that we will see significant 'cliffing'. Hope I'm proved wrong because if cliffing evident we can then we safely say the North Beach between the gap bridge and harbour is lost for ever as amenity.

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

Comments