The post you are reporting:
Please note that I write here and on other fora in my personal capacity - these are my own individual views.
Brian #317 - no.
Reginald #313 - The overall Masterplan was developed back in 2006-2007, I believe, and the consultative exercise for the overall development and the HRO that it required mentioned that it was likely that the Goodwin sands would be a source for the infill required. The HRO, on which the current development depends, was granted in 2012 with not a whisper of protest raised about the Goodwins being mentioned as a potential source of material. Of course, before any Marine Dredging can take place, a license has to be granted by the Crown Estate via the Marine Management Organisation and the key part of any license is an environmental impact assessment carried out at the behest of the MMO and paid for by the licensee - the licensee does not see the outcomes of the EIA before they are ready for reporting to the MMO. Once the MMO has the results of the EIA, they open the application for a license to public consultation.
I joined the board last May, after the EIA had been published and at a time when the conclusions that the EIA came to would make most rational people conclude that there ought to be no major issues with the granting of a license provided certain conditions were met; Conditions which the port would of course meet. Especially as the Goodwins Sands are and have been a commercial marine aggregate site that have been dredged extensively (Eurotunnel sourced at least 6 million tonnes from the area for example) since the Second World War and the nearest alternative material sources create a minimum of five times the environmental detriment.
It should be noted that the port did not just plough ahead with things initially, but waited until the results of the EIA became known and the risk of not getting a license was considered to be significantly lowered as a result. Certainly, alternatives were considered, but all known alternative sources of aggregate have a starting point of 5 times the environmental impact and a price tag running into the tens of millions more, so alternative plans for the development have the same overall cost (which has to include a carbon offset because the carbon footprint is so much higher), but are not so expansive on non-revenue earning regeneration activity and public realm as a result. Apart from the controversy created by this protest, which has latched onto specious and emotionally charged arguments bolstered by celebrity endorsements to engender it, it is hard to see any real reasons for a refusal. The protest offers no alternative which does not do more environmental damage.
Dover has had to sacrifice a lot over the years to support a growing port business and most recently sacrificed access to a pier which was well loved by many. I really want to see those sacrifices and losses mitigated in full measure and that becomes increasingly difficult to achieve when money which could be used for non-revenue earning development and regeneration here in Dover has to be otherwise allocated.