Dredging threat to the Goodwin Sands
- 17 August 2017 14:25332815The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has received an application update and further information relating to the application for a licence to dredged aggregate at Goodwin Sands under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 ("the 2009 Act").
The following further information has been provided in response to MMO’s letter dated 20 December 2016 and the public representations raised following the last consultation:
•20170810_GoodwinSandsDec2016MMO_Response_Final_submission,
•Appendix_1_Nov2016_Heritage_Meeting_minutes
•Appendix_2_Goodwins_ArchaeologicalReview
•Appendix_3_Goodwins_ArchaeologicalReview_Annex
•100817_Goodwin_Sands_Public_Representations_Responses
•
The application for a marine licence has also been updated to:
•Reduce the volume of material required;
•Reduce the proposed dredge area; and
•Alter the stages of the indicative dredging programme.
A 42 day public consultation on the further information started on 17 August 2017 and a public notice has been advertised in the East Kent Mercury, Dover Express and the Fishing News, where details of how to make a representation can be found.
The further information documents listed and application update can be viewed on the MMO Public Register - https://www.gov.uk/check-marine-licence-register , using the case reference MLA/2016/00227.
Updates on the application can be viewed at the Selected Cases part of the MMO website - https://www.gov.uk/…/goodwin-sands-aggregate-dredging-scheme .
Representations should be limited to comments regarding the above additional information only.
Representations in respect of the application update and further information should ordinarily be made by:
•Visiting the MMO public register at https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk/…/M…/search… and accessing the ‘make a comment’ section of case reference MLA/2016/00227:
However, we will also accept representations via the following formats:
•By email to marine.consents@marinemanagement.org.uk; or alternatively
•By letter addressed to Marine Management Organisation, Lancaster House, Hampshire Court, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7YH
In all cases, correspondence must:
•Quote the case reference; and
•Include an address to which correspondence relating to the representation or objection may be sent.
The Marine Management Organisation will pass to the applicant a copy of any objection or representation we receive.
Enquiries regarding this consultation request should be directed to Marine Licensing Business Support Team using the marine.consents@marinemanagement.org.uk or 0191 376 2791, quoting the case reference MLA/2016/00227.
Yours faithfully
David Morris I Marine Licensing Case Officer I Marine Licensing Team I Marine Management Organisation.
The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) - 17 August 2017 17:03332822I am bemused by all the misinformation on this matter.
The new marina is already under construction as is the 'cut' joining the new marina to the Wellington Dock Marina. That is fact.
The next phase of Dover's development- Wellington Dock to Dover Town Hall- is in the final phase of Master Planning prior to public consultation- when partners agree the last details- which include crossing the A20 & joining the Town Centre to the Waterfront.
Re-configuration of York St is also part of this project.
I would hope the MMO decide the application on evidence based Scientific & authentic Heritage issues. So far they have ducked their decision making responsibilities which are to no ones benefit & rachets up costs unnecessarily.
The campaigners have had them on the run & they are under pressure.
Delay is at Dover's cost.
It's time the MMO's lack of resolve is determined; whatever the outcome.
This has gone on too long & the larger local community is the loser.Button, Captain Haddock and Paul M like this - 17 August 2017 17:07332824Well said
- 17 August 2017 18:47332832As always Mr Watkins you do a very good post and I agree with you ,I also think the plans put forward by the D,H,B,will all get done and it will be very nice and that as always had my support as long as they do NOT TAKE ANYMORE SAND FROM THE GOODWIN,S.Guest 1792 likes this
- PatrickS
- Location: Marine Parade, Dover
- Registered: 19 Sep 2015
- Posts: 448
19 August 2017 17:36332916Whatever the pros and cons of taking sand/aggregate from the Goodwin Sands I fail to see any logic in the latest media / advertising campaign onslaughter by Dover Harbour Board.
First threaten the very people who will benefit from the development of leisure facilities as part of the Western Docks Revival program. Then ask for their help by supporting them.
Yes, the Western Docks needs developing. Yes, the present cargo facilities are indequate. Yes, DHB facilities need to expand to meet exisiting and future needs. Yes, the docks and harbour are an essential part of the future of Dover - for the town, the leisure facilities and visitors from both land and sea.
I have no opinion on the issue of the Sands; do not possess all the relevant information required to make a judgement, and even if I did, there is a good chance that I would not be in a position to formulate any meaningful viewpoint.
If Dover Harbour Board wishes to differ from the views of those that oppose the dredging of the sands then their present advertising campaign does no justice to their cause. If they have a view (as we know they have) then why not just state your case? Why go the the depths of a public relations exercise that simply gets the backs up of all those they are trying to canvas for support?
The Harbour Board knew from the outset they required a licence for the extraction of 2.5cu metres sand/aggregate from the Goodwins. They knew they did not have one. They knew they had to apply for one. They knew that previous applications had been difficult and were by no means easy to obtain. Despite the Evironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) obtained and submitted to the MMO they knew there was always a chance that they might not get approval.
Any development the size of the Dover Western Docks Revival (DWDR) requires serious assessment and contingency planning. They had a finite source of finance for the project so it would be even more essential that these considerations are at the forefront of their plan. Just as vitial are that these are formulated and introduced into the development at the right time.
If it should come to pass that DHB fail to deliver the full leisure facilities shown in their literature, billboards and media presentations, then it will not be because of opposition from the GoodwinSandsSOS campaign. It will not be due to any lack of support from the people of Dover and District. It will fall squarely and absolutely on the Harbour Board, their Directors, and their PR machine - and no-one else.
Sorry DHB, I support a lot of what you do but IMHO you have this one very wrong.Alec Sheldon, howard mcsweeney1 and Jan Higgins like this - 19 August 2017 18:04332917There is a similar sign greeting travellers at the dock entrance, considering the vast majority are from other parts of the UK and mainland Europe I doubt that many are concerned about what happens in Dover. The environmental impact assessment was commissioned by DHB so was hardly going to say that coastal erosion was likely to happen.
- Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,397
19 August 2017 18:14332918howard mcsweeney1 wrote:The environmental impact assessment was commissioned by DHB so was hardly going to say that coastal erosion was likely to happen.
How's the old tin-foil helmet Howard?Button and howard mcsweeney1 like this"The world is still a weird place, despite my efforts to make clear and perfect sense of it".
Dr. Hunter S Thompson - 19 August 2017 22:32332922PatrickS wrote:Sorry DHB, I support a lot of what you do but IMHO you have this one very wrong.
Is it really such a bad campaign though? For months the coverage of this issue has been dominated by "Save Our Sands", and even on this forum it is the usual anti-DHB brigade who are shouting the loudest. Maybe the change of tone from the Harbour Board is uncomfortable for some, but one thing that is for certain is that they are now being heard, and people are becoming aware of what is at stake.Button and Captain Haddock like this - 20 August 2017 01:43332923The D,H,B, is not fooling anyone with all the sigh,s they have put up and what they are putting in the public letter boxs ,it also must be costing them a lot of money to do it,and ALL it has done is upsetting more of the public and harding the way most of us in DOVER AND DEAL AND OTHER TOWNS IN THE UK ARE THINKING.And the bulling way they going about it WILL NOT WORK.
- PatrickS
- Location: Marine Parade, Dover
- Registered: 19 Sep 2015
- Posts: 448
20 August 2017 08:45332924The sole issue in all of this is the licence to dredge.
It [U]appears[/U] that Dover Harbour Board failed to make adequate provision for not being able to extract sand from the Goodwins.
Are they not now merely attempting to cover said failure by resorting to a classic PR deflective tactic. Trying to push the blame for this failure away from themselves?howard mcsweeney1 and Guest 649 like this - 20 August 2017 08:52332926You are right in what you say sir thank you for your post,s.I t was all about the way D,H,B,costed the work in the first place,and wrong to think they could just use sand from a war grave to save money, and that is what is all about,there are many ways they could get sand or some other but that might cost more funding.
- Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,261
20 August 2017 09:24332929DHB are treating this like a "pissing contest"while making spurious quotes in their misleading campaign :
"quality jobs"-such as waiters and waitresses!
"and by nurturing local skills to match"-what are they doing to nurture local skills?
"the best opportunity to deliver local jobs for local people"-at best maybe 100 low skilled low paid customer service jobs.
"DWDR will kick start the wider regeneration of Dover"-they obviously don't use Townwall st to get to work.
The attitude they have adopted in this campaign is aggressive and confrontational and do they really think the MMO care who has the most signatures?Guest 2025, Brian Dixon, howard mcsweeney1 and 1 more like thisGuest 2025, Brian Dixon, howard mcsweeney1 and Guest 649 like thisArte et Marte - 20 August 2017 09:50332932RIGHT again sir well said.
And might I add where does our own MP stand on this one ,?well that is an easy Q and I have said it many times he is sitting on the fence till he see which side wins,he knows if he take sides now get it wrong could cost him his job next time round,if he joins our side and comes out with that the sands from a war grave must not be used, it could cost his party funding and if he goes along with the D.H.B. it will cost him a lot of votes, so he takes the easy way out of sitting on the fence say nothing till it is all over.
But by doing that will still cost him support over the next 3years,he is a great person for getting his photos shot,s in the local papers but not on this one.
Well I say to him get off the fence and go the way you are thinking and tell it to the public.
Also let us not forget the lost of life on the sands after the war,the one that I am thinking of right now is the lost of life when the Goodwin sand light house ship went down with the lose of it crew bar one. The weather that night was very bad and they could not get the life boat next to it ,but a Helicopter got one member of its crew off when he climbed up to the top of the mast. - 20 August 2017 11:03332936PatrickS wrote:The sole issue in all of this is the licence to dredge.
It [U]appears[/U] that Dover Harbour Board failed to make adequate provision for not being able to extract sand from the Goodwins.
Are they not now merely attempting to cover said failure by resorting to a classic PR deflective tactic. Trying to push the blame for this failure away from themselves?
Forgive me if I'm missing the obvious, but what do you mean by "failed to make adequate provision"? What do you expect DHB to do? They have looked at 16 alternative sources of material, the next cheapest being twice the cost of using the Goodwins.
The idea that rocketing costs won't have a tangible impact on the final product is fantasy. Why should DHB not be allowed to make this clear?Button and Paul M like this - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
20 August 2017 11:31332938Of course DHB would obviously go for the cheapest but they should also have a contingency plan which would mean slightly altering the original plan to cover part of the extra expenditure.
That is something we all do in everyday life if we have any sense, we do not alienate our family to get our own way especially if we are not the most popular person in that family to start with.
I still think DHB's publicity machine needs a radical shakeup.PatrickS and howard mcsweeney1 like this-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 20 August 2017 11:45332939Jan Higgins wrote:Of course DHB would obviously go for the cheapest but they should also have a contingency plan which would mean slightly altering the original plan to cover part of the extra expenditure.
But isn't that exactly what DHB are doing? Parts of the project will be cut as a result of escalating costs if the MMO don't grant the license.
I may be wrong here, but it appears DHB are being criticised for not having a contingency plan, whilst simultaneously being criticised because people don't like their contingency plan.Paul M and Button like this - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
20 August 2017 13:27332940The contingency plan that DHB seem to have is to threaten everyone with what they will not do. This is surely the worst possible alternative and I very much doubt the the only plan they have tucked away.
Like me saying if I can't have a thatched roof I will only have tin without giving the alternative choices of tiles or slate.
I notice SWWood does not criticise the publicity machine comment who are to blame for running such a negative campaign.Guest 2025, Guest 649, Guest 1831 and 1 more like thisGuest 2025, Guest 649, Guest 1831 and Brian Dixon like this-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
20 August 2017 15:02332942I'm with jan,. the big brother tactic posed by DHB isn't workingGuest 2025 likes thisALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 20 August 2017 15:03332943DHB have not "threatened everyone with what they will not do", they have warned everyone of what they might not be able to do. There is a world of difference, but if you view this issue through a prism of anti-DHB sentiment, you will see what you want to see.
In terms of the "publicity machine" comment, I don't blame DHB for taking a tone that actually cuts through. I do think it is a shame that it has come to this, but DHB have started fighting fire with fire. People were not listening. They are now.Captain Haddock, Paul M and Button like this - 20 August 2017 15:43332945Sorry but post 442 is not right they need to go right back from the very first post and read them all ,the D,H,B, has threatened and still is doing it to the public ,we are not all anti towards D,H,B, infact some of us are in full support of what they doing in the way of the new build ,but what we are up in arms about that they are using sand from a war grave just because of money when there are better ways but might and I say might cost more. And that is the true facts and the D,H,B, know this only to well.They were hoping like what has been done in the pass using the sand from a war grave without the public picking up on it,but this time the public has,we should have picked up what was happing a very long time ago when other company,s and the D,H,B,were taking it,but that still is not right to carry on taking it,it is wrong to use it and it must be stopped.
