Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Wallasea Jetty

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where life is good
    Posts
    14,010

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty

    Whether it was the best or secons best land is immaterial against the fact is used to produce food and now is an unfinished theme park that neither feeds people or provides a small number of people with something to look at.
    Life is too short to drink bad wine.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where life is good
    Posts
    14,010

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty

    Quote Originally Posted by Bru View Post
    For once, we're in total agreement!
    We are always in agreement.
    Life is too short to drink bad wine.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,394

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomahawk View Post
    We are always in agreement.
    Even when we're not

    But we're definitely on agreement with this one

    Large parts of Wallasea Island WERE Grade One or Grade Two land*, the best and most productive agricultural land

    And to turn hundreds of acres of the best land over to a vanity project which destroyed their usefulness for the forseeable future (it would cost far more to undo the damage, if indeed it could be undone, than to do it) at a time of ioncreasing food imports and a long term future of potential global food shortages is nothing short of criminally stupid IMO

    * I can't be bothered to find the original references after all this time but from my recollection of the reports when this project was first mooted the majority of the farmed land was Grade One, apparently the only such land in the area, with a smaller proportion of Grade Two which is still top quality land for arable etc. production

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Burnham-on-Crouch, UK
    Posts
    592

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty

    Quote Originally Posted by Bru View Post
    That is the crux of the matter

    How they originally got the deal for the Crossrail spoil is anybody's guess but they didn't get as much as expected because somebody at Crossrail realised that any inert material suitable for landfill capping is a marketable commodity
    I suspect the answer is pressure from the government of the day. At the time, Charles Clark was Minister at the department of Environment and he was under pressure from the EU because extension of port facilities at both Felixstowe and Sheerness had reduced the available salt marshes available for migrating birds. The UK had been warned that, if no remedial action were taken, the UK would be fined some eye watering sum per week until remedial action was taken. He therefore engaged expensive consultants who studied the East Coast and concluded that the only solution available was to flood farmland around Bradwell Power Station.

    However, while this was being discussed, it transpired that the owner of the site at Wallasea was becoming disillusioned with the cost of maintaining the sea defences for this site, compared with the income from farming it, so was interested in selling the land. Nobody asked how the consultants had failed to identify this site, but interest in the Bradwell site disappeared and the rest is history.

    Peter.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    From the Needles to the Nab, from Cowes to St Catherine's
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty

    Quote Originally Posted by Bru View Post
    Even when we're not

    But we're definitely on agreement with this one

    Large parts of Wallasea Island WERE Grade One or Grade Two land*, the best and most productive agricultural land

    And to turn hundreds of acres of the best land over to a vanity project which destroyed their usefulness for the forseeable future (it would cost far more to undo the damage, if indeed it could be undone, than to do it) at a time of ioncreasing food imports and a long term future of potential global food shortages is nothing short of criminally stupid IMO

    * I can't be bothered to find the original references after all this time but from my recollection of the reports when this project was first mooted the majority of the farmed land was Grade One, apparently the only such land in the area, with a smaller proportion of Grade Two which is still top quality land for arable etc. production
    Grade 3 - http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread...00#post6084100

    From the same thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bru View Post
    There is no doubt that reasonably large areas of intertidal salt marsh absorb tidal and storm surge energy

    Whether Wallasey Island, if it's ever finished, will have a positive impact or not I've no idea though

    We are faced with a stark choice over the next century - we either construct sea defences on a vast scale that will dwarf even the Netherlands extensive works or we abandon significant areas of the East Coast to erosion and rising sea levels

    The costs of maintaining the current coastline would probably beggar the country for generations
    Substance over style

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,394

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty

    So I've changed my mind! It is allowed you know, as long as the subject isn't Brexit

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    From the Needles to the Nab, from Cowes to St Catherine's
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty



    I take you point about loss of farming land, even it if turns out to be distinctly average in quality rather than the best. However as my other half would point out, and as mentioned in Peter Wright's post above, we have taken an awful lot of salt marsh habitat for ourselves in the past so I don't begrudge giving a little bit of it back.
    Substance over style

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,394

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty

    i wouldn't begrudge it either but I'm not convinced the Wallasea project is going to achieve its stated aims

    I do note the point made above about the cost of maintaining the sea defences compared to the viability of farming the land (especially given that the land isn't as good as i thought it was)

    Damn, i think i might be changing my mind again!!!

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where life is good
    Posts
    14,010

    Default Re: Wallasea Jetty

    When we take salt marsh and use it for farming, it feeds vey large numbers of people.
    When we take large areas of farmland and turn it into a theme park for a particular hobby, we loose the ability to feed people. Yet the majority of people in the country do not share the same hobby as those who are promoting this project. Indeed by numbers, active bird spotters are a very small portion of the population. Yet their hobby seems to be given priority over every other hobby such as sailing.
    Life is too short to drink bad wine.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to