FullCircle
Well-Known Member
Please find below another e-mail from Trinity House with the question that I posed asking if a donation fund could be used to restore the Sunk Beacon. It would seem again that the advances in electronic positioning and navigation are reducing the visual aids available to small craft users.
I must comment that I think that Trinity House have been very good in the correspondance, and although I do not support their position, I can at least understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My reply to the original reply:
Dear Mr XXXXX,
thank you for taking the trouble to reply. As I (and most East Coasters)
surmised, it is not to be replaced, which is correct if you target your
resource at commercial only traffic, but does not seek to aid the small
craft plying the swatchways.
Could you give some indication of cost to replace this mark, as you must
have estimates to have precluded its restoration from your work plans. If
the leisure community could raise the required sum, would Trinity House
consider the restoration? After all, it seems as it only needs doing every
50 years or so....
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Return e-mail from Trinity House:
Thank you for your recent e-mail re costs associated with re-instatement of the SW Sunk beacon.
We have not costed the replacement of the structure because, as previously explained, it was never our structure and we do not consider it to be required for general navigation.
However, we have recently been considering the future of the East and West Blacktail Lighthouses, which are our structures and which are also in the Thames Estuary, and the costs that might be associated with their replacement. Whilst they are more substantial structures than would probably be necessary if someone were prepared to reconstruct the SW Sunk, they do serve to give an indication of the order of costs involved. It is estimated that replacement of these Lighthouses would probably cost in the order of £170,000, although this would also include the costs of the lights etc required. A substantial part of the estimated cost relates to the cost of mobilising and deploying a suitable jack up vessel / barge to the site.
If it was possible to interest someone to fund the building of a replacement structure, then the on-going maintenance of the structure would need to be addressed, along with safe access for maintenance, as well as issues such as liability insurance etc. The structure would also require consent under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. Consents are currently administered by the Marine Consents and Environment Unit (further information can be obtained from their website www.mceu.gov.uk). As the site also lies within the limits of the Port of London Authority, a Works Licence from them may also be required.
I must comment that I think that Trinity House have been very good in the correspondance, and although I do not support their position, I can at least understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My reply to the original reply:
Dear Mr XXXXX,
thank you for taking the trouble to reply. As I (and most East Coasters)
surmised, it is not to be replaced, which is correct if you target your
resource at commercial only traffic, but does not seek to aid the small
craft plying the swatchways.
Could you give some indication of cost to replace this mark, as you must
have estimates to have precluded its restoration from your work plans. If
the leisure community could raise the required sum, would Trinity House
consider the restoration? After all, it seems as it only needs doing every
50 years or so....
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Return e-mail from Trinity House:
Thank you for your recent e-mail re costs associated with re-instatement of the SW Sunk beacon.
We have not costed the replacement of the structure because, as previously explained, it was never our structure and we do not consider it to be required for general navigation.
However, we have recently been considering the future of the East and West Blacktail Lighthouses, which are our structures and which are also in the Thames Estuary, and the costs that might be associated with their replacement. Whilst they are more substantial structures than would probably be necessary if someone were prepared to reconstruct the SW Sunk, they do serve to give an indication of the order of costs involved. It is estimated that replacement of these Lighthouses would probably cost in the order of £170,000, although this would also include the costs of the lights etc required. A substantial part of the estimated cost relates to the cost of mobilising and deploying a suitable jack up vessel / barge to the site.
If it was possible to interest someone to fund the building of a replacement structure, then the on-going maintenance of the structure would need to be addressed, along with safe access for maintenance, as well as issues such as liability insurance etc. The structure would also require consent under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. Consents are currently administered by the Marine Consents and Environment Unit (further information can be obtained from their website www.mceu.gov.uk). As the site also lies within the limits of the Port of London Authority, a Works Licence from them may also be required.
