Pseudo-greenery, or when in doubt call for an Environmental Impact Assessment.

[Kukri]

This is just daft, but when did the local government round here have any common sense?

Erosion threat sparks decision to demolish coastguard station

 

[Tomahawk]

It's because of European Environmental regulations.

And as the good folks in the Lounge will tell you, we must be instructed in every aspect of our lives by the European Union.

 

[Kukri]

No it isn’t:

It’s because East Suffolk Council are idiots. Or is Denmark not in the EU?

Danish lighthouse wheeled away from eroding coastline

 

[Hydrozoan]

But is the Danish lighthouse in a European Protected Site and if so of what kind (it looks as if it might well be - see European protected sites), and do you know that the £0.6m cost of moving did not include an EIA, or that one was not done at all - perhaps outside that cost? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong to conclude as you do, but the basis of your specific comparison is not really clear to me without such information.

And what I wonder does it cost, additional to what would have to be done anyway, to document (from your first link): '... demolition methods to be used and the timings and timescales for the works; pollution control measures to be implemented; locations of any contractor compound and material storage/stockpiling areas; access routes for machinery/personnel; and details of how demolition materials will be removed from site and disposed of'. Perhaps not a great deal?

 

[Kukri]

What is making me angry is that the Danes have saved their little lighthouse but we English have done nothing to preserve ours - indeed we have done nothing at all except to go in for an exercise in pointless bureaucracy - pointless because the adjoining building collapsed three months ago, having forgotten to get permission to do so and without any ‘assessment’ at all.

 

[Hydrozoan]

I accept the point that doing something before collapse requires an EIA, whereas allowing collapse avoids the need, but I suspect that such asymmetries and ironies are not uncommon in law. And I do still wonder just how much extra effort is needed to collect together and submit information which (if the newspaper's list is correct) is almost certainly being obtained and documented anyway to organise and manage the job.

 

[Stork_III]

The link doesn't say the lighthouse is to be demolish, it is the derelict coastguard building near by, unless I mistaken.

 

[Kukri]

The lighthouse will fall into the sea shortly, following the adjacent bungalow. Which makes a bit of a nonsense of the fuss about the coastguard building, which has already lost its roof, windows, doors and what have you.

 

[LittleSister]

The trouble is, it is the law. If the owners want to demolish it they probably need permission. If they need permission the local authority is obliged by law to consider whether it meets the relevant criteria, and if so to require an environmental statement and consider it.

The local authority would be acting unlawfully and, probably more pertinently, opening themselves up to a lot of expensive, time consuming and public relations grief from a legal challenge by some group or person who disagreed with the demolition (or just wanted to give the local authority a poke in the eye).

 

[alandalus11]

We should be looking at savings Lowestoft instead of the lighthouse.

Greta Thunberg in rising sea levels u-turn after visiting Lowestoft

 

[scotty123]

We should be looking at savings Lowestoft instead of the lighthouse.

Greta Thunberg in rising sea levels u-turn after visiting Lowestoft

That's got to be a joke.

 

[johnalison]

That's got to be a joke.

Surely not. Saint Greta doesn't have a sense of humour as far as I can tell.

 

[Hydrozoan]

Surely not. Saint Greta doesn't have a sense of humour as far as I can tell.

I guess that you are no more a denizen of Twitter than I am, but a quick search threw up this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1112605479644078080

But she went on quickly to explain that it was an (April Fool) joke - as I often have to do with my attempts at humour, so you may not be too far off the mark.

 

[Kukri]

The Suffolk Gazette adheres to the highest standards of traditional East Anglian journalism, although the Editor does get a bit carried away when reporting on Norfolk.

 

[LittleSister]

The Suffolk/Norfolk coastline has been retreating for around 10,000 years, so if they'd wanted the lighthouse to last they should have built it about 15 miles inland.

Interesting interactive relief mapping here - Orford topographic map, relief, elevation

 

[Old Harry]

We should be looking at savings Lowestoft instead of the lighthouse.

Greta Thunberg in rising sea levels u-turn after visiting Lowestoft

Are you sure about that

 

[Old Bumbulum]

Can't understand the need to demolish either building at vast public expense when the sea will shortly do it for free.

What is the urgency to pre-empt nature?

It strikes me as being a pointless exercise in control-freakery.

 

[Hydrozoan]

Can't understand the need to demolish either building at vast public expense when the sea will shortly do it for free.

What is the urgency to pre-empt nature?

It strikes me as being a pointless exercise in control-freakery.

Safety and avoidance of contaminants such as asbestos entering the sea, according to the link in the OP. The application and response etc. are on the East Suffolk Council website, if you want more information.