Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Jan, yes, as per my post #294, on this subject I have agreed to speak publicly because, after studying the evidence presented, I do agree that accessing material from the Goodwins is the most environmentally sound choice which also has the side benefit of maximising the amount that can be invested in delivering on public realm regeneration along the waterfront and jobs for Dover and the wider area. If more has to be spent on accessing material elsewhere at a higher environmental cost, which also has to be offset, then there will inevitably be a difference between the non-revenue earning elements that the port wants to deliver and what can be delivered. However, I am not, in more general terms, a spokesman for the port.
Mr Vic, you seem to forget that the DHB was trying to sell itself to remote private equity shareholders at the time and that had it not sought to do so, there would have been no reason to create the organisation that I headed as an alternative.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
You can say what and how you like but the public of Dover will not be taken in by it this time,The D.h.B was not trying to sell itself off ,you are playing with words ,but that will not work.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Chris, hi, the Goodwins contain approx. 1.14 billion tonnes of sand and gravel. The port has applied for a license to recover a maximum of 2.5 million tonnes = 0.22 of 1 percent. The area surveyed for the purposes of the licensing application has a considerably larger surface area than will actually be required so as to enable some considerable flexibility in case any surveys discover anything which should not be disturbed. Licensing conditions will come with the license should the MMO decide to grant one and there will be observers on site and on the dredgers. Dredging will be limited to certain times of year to avoid spawning and pupping seasons. Undersea and coastal modelling by HR Wallingford and Royal Haskoning concludes that there will be no effect on coastal erosion for the amount of sand requested. A full report in 3 volumes commissioned on behalf of the MMO is available from
http://www.doverport.co.uk/administrator/tinymce/source/DWDR%20Updates/Goodwin%20Sands%20Aggregate%20Dredging%20Enviromental%20Statement%20-%20Volume%20I_NTS_Final.pdf
http://www.doverport.co.uk/administrator/tinymce/source/DWDR%20Updates/Goodwin%20Sands%20Environmental%20Statement%20Volume%20II%20EIA%20Outcome_Final.pdf
http://www.doverport.co.uk/administrator/tinymce/source/DWDR%20Updates/Goodwin%20Sands%20Environmental%20Statement_Volume_III_Appendices_Final.pdf
and additional info can be found at
http://www.doverport.co.uk/administrator/tinymce/source/160923_Goodwin%20Sands%20MLA_Further%20Environmental%20Information_Final.pdf
Hope this helps. It is all posted on the port's website in full as per above. The reports were commissioned from independent consultancy firms by the MMO.
Captain Haddock likes this
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
picked by the D,H,B, TO MAKE IT ALL LOOK RIGHT,
Chris- Forum Admin
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Oct 2009
- Posts: 357
Thanks Neil, I'll have a look at those links.
Guest 1831- Registered: 1 Sep 2016
- Posts: 395
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p058n0v8#play
seek bar 1.30.54 / 1.40.05
Discussion regarding Goodwin Sands Dredging.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,577
I'm a little reluctant to say I agree with post 307
Although the poster was happy to let this go through as he supported DHB at the time
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,497
Leading Hydrographer Sir Mark Rylance adds to the debate!
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/sir-mark-rylance-backs-goodwin-130149/
(Whoops! My mistake! He's not a leading hydrographer at all but merely someone who is famous for dressing up and pretending to be other people)
Ross Miller likes this
'If no one went no faster than what I do there'd be a sight less trouble in this world'
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Rather parochial of you Bob this story has been in various nationals and Kent Online has just woken up. Good to see the luvvies helping us reach a decision, my understanding is that Neil Stuke will give a resume of his scientific study when time allows.
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,206
Surely DHB must have always known that the MMO could refuse dredging rights regardless of opposition groups and thus should have had an alternative option? If they presumed they would get permission and did not have a contingency then it shows major flaws in the planning process they employed.
Did they have a contingency Neil?
Guest 1831 and Jan Higgins like this
Arte et Marte
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I still support what the DHB is doing just I do not support the taking of sand from the Goodwin sands
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,497
From the Grauniad 08/08 :- Mark Rylance criticises 'disrespectful' plans to dredge Channel sands
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/07/mark-rylance-dredge-channel-sands-dunkirk-dover'If no one went no faster than what I do there'd be a sight less trouble in this world'
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Interview with Joanna Thompson on the News at Ten this evening.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
pause for thought,does the Goodwin sands come under the fisheries no fish zone,so protected from any commercial work.
Guest 2198- Registered: 8 Aug 2017
- Posts: 1
Apologies as I am new to the Forum, so this may have either been suggested or technically not feasible, but was it ever considered to use the spoil located at Samphire Hoe for the infil?
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,681
Samphire Hoe is now a SSI and as such cannot be touched.
There are already licensed sand and gravel extraction zones in the Thames Estuary. DHB consider that the additional distance from these to Dover will deliver a greater overall environmental impact than dredging 0.22% of the Goodwin Sands - I will leave you to make your own judgement
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
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.
Ross Miller, Button and Reginald Barrington like this
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,658
Ross Miller wrote: DHB consider that the additional distance from these to Dover will deliver a greater overall environmental impact than dredging 0.22% of the Goodwin Sands
Hmm, "environmental impact" is so convenient a phrase when there just might be another reason which is more plausible, could it be the cost.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mr Wiggins is playing about with words again.All he is trying to do is put up a case why he is now getting a paid job on the D,H,B and that the DH.B. can do no wrong,when a few years back he was telling us all that the D.H.B. should go because what they are doing to the port of Dover'
And yes it is all about the funding, they got their sums wrong from day one, they were hoping to get it done on the cheap but were found out.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Neil
What is it to be? You are a Director of DHB yet post as a simple member of the public on the all important issue of the Goodwin Sands dredging. We know that DHB have a very strict policy on public statements and that everything is thoroughly vetted prior to being made public.
I agree with your assertion that celebrities have made strong statements without them probably going over the detailed issues but locally the reputation of DHB can be likened to children finding a turd in a bouncy castle. We have all seen our wonderful pier demolished with the prospect of cargo sheds decorating our sea view, would it not be simpler to take the aggregate from the Thames Estuary? That way there would not be any money left over to pay for what we were never going to get anyway.