Flooding Wallasea Island

DanTribe

DanTribe

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 Jan 2002
Messages
5,667
Location
Essex
Visit site
Apparently RSPB plan to breach the seawalls in the Roach & Crouch to form tidal wetlands over much of Wallasea, similiar to the small area already done by DEFRA.
They will bring in shiploads of spoil from Crossrail Link to form shallow lagoons.
It won't affect the rivers, they say.
Anybody got any inside info or views?

Dan
 
I suspect no-one knows quite what the effect will be. Certainly the tide flows slower on the South side of the Crouch than it used to, changing racing tactics a bit.
 
I would guess that if they do this there will be a much greater volume of water required to cover the extra land which will cover, therefore the tidal flows should increase, assuming that there is not already the maximum possible flowing through?

There has been concern expressed about Southwold harbour being unusable if more land is allowed to flood up river, but a contrary view is that the harbour entrance is incapable of letting a greater flow through, so neap rates would increase but springs would be much the same.

Any thoughts, perhaps we have some hydraulic experts on the forum?
 
I understand that now, although it hasn't been well publicised north of the Crouch and I'm not a regular reader of RSPB websites.
What I hadn't realised was the scale of the operation.
They are talking about 2 ships per tide /24/7/52 for 4 years [ or it may be 10yrs]
In general I'm in favour of the scheme but I think that amount of additional ship movements in the Crouch will have a noticeable effect on river users.
The RSPB first concern is rightly for the birds but the rest of us should have an input.
 
Is there a possibility it will be big enough to create a new sailing area at the top of the tide. Bit like the gulf of morbihan but without the sunshine.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that now, although it hasn't been well publicised north of the Crouch and I'm not a regular reader of RSPB websites.
What I hadn't realised was the scale of the operation.
They are talking about 2 ships per tide /24/7/52 for 4 years [ or it may be 10yrs]
In general I'm in favour of the scheme but I think that amount of additional ship movements in the Crouch will have a noticeable effect on river users.
The RSPB first concern is rightly for the birds but the rest of us should have an input.

[/ QUOTE ]

To make life more interesting for both wildlife and humans seems an excellent idea and probably supported by most.

But why not just recover the land gained by farmers in the last 75 years , which has been maintained at enormous cost by the tax payer in both subsidies and sea defences.

In other words, just flood the land and take back which was previously the sea. This has been done very successfully in many areas without the disruption and cost. It could be done gradually to make sure things are working well.

Compensation could be made to private dwellings that have to move.

The massive expense in shifting stuff could surely be diverted in other more productive ways.
 
It was exlained to me that because Wallasea is well below HW level, just breaching the walls will result in greater water velocities and resultant scour and silting of the main river.
Therefore they want to raise the general levels before breaching, to form shallow 1/2 tidal mudflats in order to provide smaller quantities of water giving low velocities and shallow lagoons for the birdies.
Apparently Environment Agency will not be maintaing these seawalls in future, so at some point the walls will collapse anyway if nothing is done.
There are no dwellings on that part of the island.
Crossrail are very keen to get rid of their spoil and will fund all costs involved [so we are told]
 
[ QUOTE ]
It was exlained to me that because Wallasea is well below HW level, just breaching the walls will result in greater water velocities and resultant scour and silting of the main river.
Therefore they want to raise the general levels before breaching, to form shallow 1/2 tidal mudflats in order to provide smaller quantities of water giving low velocities and shallow lagoons for the birdies.
Apparently Environment Agency will not be maintaing these seawalls in future, so at some point the walls will collapse anyway if nothing is done.
There are no dwellings on that part of the island.
Crossrail are very keen to get rid of their spoil and will fund all costs involved [so we are told]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah ! That's the reason why then.

Sounds much better now.

Many thanks .
 
The Roach Sailing Association have obtained 2 massive files of planning application. Any responses have to be made in 3 weeks time. If anyone wants more info PM me.
 
I was in favour of this scheme until I went through the plans and maps at a committee meeting of the RSA.

On the south side of the crouch they will be building a 250M jetty sticking approximately 30M into the main part of the river to take ships for the spoil.

They will be cutting 6 breaches into the Roach at pretty much regular intervals starting from just below the branklet and the last about 500m west of where Wade is. i.e. just before paglesham pool.

They claim there will be no impact on the Crouch and roach but we can't see how you wont end up with spits going across the river at each breach after a few years.

If this does happen, no-one will dredge the river and IMHO it would be a disaster for the east coast sailor.

Having gone through the stuff, i'm very much against it. Will post the address of where to write to if anyone else is interested in lodging an objection.

It is all being rushed through jolly quickly so they can take the crossrail spoil.
 
If anyone does want to write to lodge their views the address is:

Essex County Council
Minerals and Waste Planning
Environmental Planning
County Hall
Chelmsford
Essex CM1 1QH

This is being rushed through very quickly. When we went through the plans yesterday we were concerned about the possible impact on the longer term navigability (is that a word?) of the Roach and also the impact of noise and light pollution for a number of years.
 
Another issue for Burnham forumites to be concerned about.

Don't mean to monopolise this thread but another issue has been raised by the RSA following further study.

We want clarification over the possible affects of dust in dry weather. Depending on wind direction, could this affect Burnham. There will be big, big machinery operating here moving tons of spoil over a long period.

It wouldn't be very nice if every easterly blew in clouds of dust from the works to the town, or a south westerly spoiled the sailing on the river.
 
Re: Another issue for Burnham forumites to be concerned about.

Just been reading through this and it beggers belief that in these enlightened times where, we are told we need to save the planet from drowing due to global warming that, they will spend up to ten years shipping muck from london to wallasea two ships per tide ( I would work this out but would just make me more angry). With environmental planet saving stuff being rammed down our throats at every turn and hitting my wallet increasingly harder each time I leave my front door.
Needing to raise the land to make shallow ponds seems rather foolish and short term if we are to believe that sea levels are rising at an alarming rate.
In the RSPB blurb they refer to reverting back to what was once at wallasea 400 years ago, personally i dont think what exhisted 400 years ago has any relevance in the slightest (what were sea levels 400 years ago) surly if the land is too low to sustain the shallow pools and habitat then before the sea defences were built it would have been tidal mud flats.
Cross rail share holders (and goverment) must be rubbing their hands in glee at not having to pay to get ride of the s**t they are digging up.
RSPB also selling it as some sort of leisure facility but just who will be using it THEM! prehaps they are expecting people from rochford, southend, leigh etc to flock there (excuse the pun) but that means they all have to get in a car to go there (Oh the enviroment!!!!) last time i was out there i dont recall a roads infrastructure suitable for an influx of people.

I like wild life but not at any cost.
 
Re: Another issue for Burnham forumites to be concerned about.

I wonder how many gallons of diesel will be used in ships and equipment. Not very green I would think.

Why not return to nature a site where you can just breach a sea wall ? There must be loads of opportunities to do this on lots of small sites that amount to alot !

The emphasis seems to be on the convenience of the Cross Rail situation rather than anything else.
 
Re: Another issue for Burnham forumites to be concerned about.

I think it amazing that this is being rushed through with such a small reaction. It will be a noise, dust and navigation blight for ten years then have an unkown impact on the flow of the Roach and possibly Crouch.

The authorities are clearly desperate to get rid of the cross rail spoil and pleasing the twitterers is an added benefit for them. Unless we all make our feelings clear to the planners now it will be a done deal.
 
Re: Another issue for Burnham forumites to be concerned about.

Hi , I attended an interesting meeting at the SWYC with the CHA part of the discussion was Wallasea. The figures on water flow as an additional 2.5Million tons of water leaving the roach and into the crouch 80m tons being the total (normal)flow from the mouth of the crouch, to what effect I wonder?
A question was raised on the dumping of waste dug from Crosrail , the disposal fee for waste being £55 per ton currently how much will Crossrail have to pay for dumping 3 ship loads a day for up to 10 years on Wallasea? Ans= £0 , someone has decided that it is no longer waste or spoil but material for a wildlife project!
Was the alleged brown envelope as thick as they think we are !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top