Seawall spectre looming

Echo: John Lamb on the current crest wall at Shoebury Common Beach John Lamb on the current crest wall at Shoebury Common Beach

WORKMEN could start building a controversial 7ft seawall across Shoebury Common this autumn after final plans were revealed.

Southend Council has unveiled proposals for the £5.18million seawall, designed to protect more than 350 homes and businesses in Shoebury from flooding.

Now it hopes work can start before next winter.

Deputy council leader John Lamb said: “I would like to think we could start work at least by the autumn and I’d like to see improvements moving ahead by the time the wet winter weather starts again.

“We need to get started. The sooner we start, the safer the people of Shoebury will be.”

The new 1,000-yard long seawall, between Ness Road and Thorpe Bay Gardens, is designed to protect properties in Shoebury from coastal flooding, with sea levels expected to rise over the next 50 years.

A grassy embankment, formed using 44,000 tonnes of earth from Southend Cliff Gardens, would mask the 710-yard part of the steel and brick wall that would stretch across the common, between Ness Road and Maplin Way.

The wall would block views of the sea between beach huts next to the common and views of the public park from the seafront promenade on the other side of the huts.

However, the tops of the huts would still be visible above the embankment from the common.

The existing crest wall between the promenade and the beach will be raised for the remaining 380 yards of the new sea defences, between Maplin Way and the beach access steps, about 170 yards west of Thorpe Bay Yacht Club. The council decided to push ahead with the scheme despite opposition from eight out of ten people who responded to a public consultation on the scheme last November.

Residents and businesses can now have their say on the final design before a cross-party group of councillors decide if it should go ahead.

The council’s development control committee will rule on the plans in public, probably within two months.

Chairman David Norman said: “It will go through the normal public planning process and all those who have a view on it will have an opportunity to express their views.

“It will, as always, be done in an open and democratic way – in which all shades of opinion will be taken into account.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:01pm Wed 12 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

Roll up roll up, buy your pericopes here, to enjoy the sea views, roll up...
Roll up roll up, buy your pericopes here, to enjoy the sea views, roll up... carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 4

3:03pm Wed 12 Mar 14

w-jback says...

Simple question, did this area flood during the last winter? Tides were at the highest for years and lapped over the road near the Gentings casino and various other places on the western esplanade, so surely that is where it is needed.
Simple question, did this area flood during the last winter? Tides were at the highest for years and lapped over the road near the Gentings casino and various other places on the western esplanade, so surely that is where it is needed. w-jback
  • Score: 9

3:59pm Wed 12 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

w-jback wrote:
Simple question, did this area flood during the last winter? Tides were at the highest for years and lapped over the road near the Gentings casino and various other places on the western esplanade, so surely that is where it is needed.
It's not a case of what has happened in regards to flooding, but what could happen, as the seas continue to rise in depth, bringing the real probability of serious flooding, of which will be thwarted, by such a flood wall.
[quote][p][bold]w-jback[/bold] wrote: Simple question, did this area flood during the last winter? Tides were at the highest for years and lapped over the road near the Gentings casino and various other places on the western esplanade, so surely that is where it is needed.[/p][/quote]It's not a case of what has happened in regards to flooding, but what could happen, as the seas continue to rise in depth, bringing the real probability of serious flooding, of which will be thwarted, by such a flood wall. carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -2

4:25pm Wed 12 Mar 14

JayRSS1 says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
w-jback wrote:
Simple question, did this area flood during the last winter? Tides were at the highest for years and lapped over the road near the Gentings casino and various other places on the western esplanade, so surely that is where it is needed.
It's not a case of what has happened in regards to flooding, but what could happen, as the seas continue to rise in depth, bringing the real probability of serious flooding, of which will be thwarted, by such a flood wall.
Having a flood wall just at one section here just pushes the problem more severely downstream, to the more populated areas.
What is needed is a runoff area, lets say a large, flat, empty, grassy area with the houses raised up from it which can temporarily hold a large body of water if the existing defenses are over run.
Oh wait we've already got that its called the common.
Are we just going to continually build ever higher and higher sea walls until the end of time?
Its a pity Shoebury common used to be a nice open space now its going to caged in by a huge earthworks like at Canvey
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]w-jback[/bold] wrote: Simple question, did this area flood during the last winter? Tides were at the highest for years and lapped over the road near the Gentings casino and various other places on the western esplanade, so surely that is where it is needed.[/p][/quote]It's not a case of what has happened in regards to flooding, but what could happen, as the seas continue to rise in depth, bringing the real probability of serious flooding, of which will be thwarted, by such a flood wall.[/p][/quote]Having a flood wall just at one section here just pushes the problem more severely downstream, to the more populated areas. What is needed is a runoff area, lets say a large, flat, empty, grassy area with the houses raised up from it which can temporarily hold a large body of water if the existing defenses are over run. Oh wait we've already got that its called the common. Are we just going to continually build ever higher and higher sea walls until the end of time? Its a pity Shoebury common used to be a nice open space now its going to caged in by a huge earthworks like at Canvey JayRSS1
  • Score: 7

4:45pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Southend Andy says...

Just let the moaners flood, then watch them run to the echo & complain that SBC didn't build a sea wall to protect them. I have a question for all of you who don't want a sea wall,
1) Will you run to the echo when you get flooded & complain its SBC fault for not building a sea wall?
2) Will you try & sue the council?
3) When will you admit you sea wall is MORE expensive & would not last as long?

I'm waiting for the normal dribble reply.
Just let the moaners flood, then watch them run to the echo & complain that SBC didn't build a sea wall to protect them. I have a question for all of you who don't want a sea wall, 1) Will you run to the echo when you get flooded & complain its SBC fault for not building a sea wall? 2) Will you try & sue the council? 3) When will you admit you sea wall is MORE expensive & would not last as long? I'm waiting for the normal dribble reply. Southend Andy
  • Score: -2

5:36pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Life in a seaside town says...

This may have been asked before, but why not raise the existing sea wall ?
This may have been asked before, but why not raise the existing sea wall ? Life in a seaside town
  • Score: 3

6:18pm Wed 12 Mar 14

rodgdodge says...

None of the proposed schemes, `protect` the existing beach and its amenities ( beach huts, water-sports centre and catering establishments ect).
They must total in the many millions of pounds, with probably no availability for insurance against sea damage ect.
Perhaps copy the Dutch and run a Dyke from Old Leigh out to the near the shipping channel, then down past the Mulbury Harbour wreck( about 1 mile further), then back to the Barge Pier at Gunners Park. Access to the inside of this ` polder` would be via Sea-Lock. The area inside could be used for all the recreational water sports the town can put on.
The entire foreshore, would be protected from storm surges, flooding ect. Saving a fortune in the long run!
None of the proposed schemes, `protect` the existing beach and its amenities ( beach huts, water-sports centre and catering establishments ect). They must total in the many millions of pounds, with probably no availability for insurance against sea damage ect. Perhaps copy the Dutch and run a Dyke from Old Leigh out to the near the shipping channel, then down past the Mulbury Harbour wreck( about 1 mile further), then back to the Barge Pier at Gunners Park. Access to the inside of this ` polder` would be via Sea-Lock. The area inside could be used for all the recreational water sports the town can put on. The entire foreshore, would be protected from storm surges, flooding ect. Saving a fortune in the long run! rodgdodge
  • Score: 4

6:30pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Joe Clark says...

Life in a seaside town wrote:
This may have been asked before, but why not raise the existing sea wall ?
Cost, to rise the current seawall (as proposed by the anti Council wall proposal people) would require the entire section of promenade to also be raised along with the beach huts, this would also require the mains and drainage systems needing to be change and the current seawall to require new foundations the length of the works, also rising the promenade would require new access points such as steps and ramps this would be much more costly to undertake and maintain over the same period of time as the council proposal, or that's I read into it.
[quote][p][bold]Life in a seaside town[/bold] wrote: This may have been asked before, but why not raise the existing sea wall ?[/p][/quote]Cost, to rise the current seawall (as proposed by the anti Council wall proposal people) would require the entire section of promenade to also be raised along with the beach huts, this would also require the mains and drainage systems needing to be change and the current seawall to require new foundations the length of the works, also rising the promenade would require new access points such as steps and ramps this would be much more costly to undertake and maintain over the same period of time as the council proposal, or that's I read into it. Joe Clark
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Joe Clark says...

People keep going on about the number of people against the seawall proposal and percentages of people who objected but that is irrelevant a billion people could all say they are against it but in planning law it is NOT the quantity of objections but the quality of objections, if you object on grounds of I don’t like it so am against it, the objection can be dismissed as not liking the way something looks is not grounds to dismiss the application.

This is known as a Non-material planning objection, thus the objection can be ignored as it is not a valid reason to dismiss a planning application, other Non-material planning considerations include:

Business competition: Seeing as no commercial interests are included in the proposal then this one can be ignored.

Loss of views: There is no planning law enshrining a “view” so again anyone submitting an objection to loss of the view can have their objection dismissed.

Damage to property fears: Again there is no planning law to take in to account the rick of any property damage fears,

Rights of way: There is no planning law stating all rights of way must be retained, as a matter of fact councils and companies can apply for permission to permanently close a right of way.

Covenants: None exist on the land.

Disturbance during development: Like any building project even if you are having a new kitchen fitted you have to allow for noise during construction.

Personal issues: It is not a justified reason to dismiss a planning application on the grounds that, You just don’t agree with it.

Like I have been stating above you MUST have a legally recognised planning reason to object to something, making frivolous objections en-mass can actually damage an objector/s stand point and lead to many objections being turned down and not counted as part of the planning hearing process.
People keep going on about the number of people against the seawall proposal and percentages of people who objected but that is irrelevant a billion people could all say they are against it but in planning law it is NOT the quantity of objections but the quality of objections, if you object on grounds of I don’t like it so am against it, the objection can be dismissed as not liking the way something looks is not grounds to dismiss the application. This is known as a Non-material planning objection, thus the objection can be ignored as it is not a valid reason to dismiss a planning application, other Non-material planning considerations include: Business competition: Seeing as no commercial interests are included in the proposal then this one can be ignored. Loss of views: There is no planning law enshrining a “view” so again anyone submitting an objection to loss of the view can have their objection dismissed. Damage to property fears: Again there is no planning law to take in to account the rick of any property damage fears, Rights of way: There is no planning law stating all rights of way must be retained, as a matter of fact councils and companies can apply for permission to permanently close a right of way. Covenants: None exist on the land. Disturbance during development: Like any building project even if you are having a new kitchen fitted you have to allow for noise during construction. Personal issues: It is not a justified reason to dismiss a planning application on the grounds that, You just don’t agree with it. Like I have been stating above you MUST have a legally recognised planning reason to object to something, making frivolous objections en-mass can actually damage an objector/s stand point and lead to many objections being turned down and not counted as part of the planning hearing process. Joe Clark
  • Score: 2

7:38pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Thorpe Bay voter and taxpayer says...

The houses this wall is supposed to protect have yet to be built and these fortunate residents saved from these dreadful non-existent floods do not yet exist! It is farcical. The council has its nose in the developer's trough - on the make and on the take like their colleagues in Westminster. They are supposed to be servants of the people but instead are lining their pockets through classic public sector non-projects that provide no benefit and only cost to the
taxpayer. The councillors who are benefitting financiallly from this should not sleep so easily - your ill-gotten gains will be traced however smart you think you have been in laundering them...
The houses this wall is supposed to protect have yet to be built and these fortunate residents saved from these dreadful non-existent floods do not yet exist! It is farcical. The council has its nose in the developer's trough - on the make and on the take like their colleagues in Westminster. They are supposed to be servants of the people but instead are lining their pockets through classic public sector non-projects that provide no benefit and only cost to the taxpayer. The councillors who are benefitting financiallly from this should not sleep so easily - your ill-gotten gains will be traced however smart you think you have been in laundering them... Thorpe Bay voter and taxpayer
  • Score: 7

8:57pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Life in a seaside town says...

Joe Clark wrote:
Life in a seaside town wrote:
This may have been asked before, but why not raise the existing sea wall ?
Cost, to rise the current seawall (as proposed by the anti Council wall proposal people) would require the entire section of promenade to also be raised along with the beach huts, this would also require the mains and drainage systems needing to be change and the current seawall to require new foundations the length of the works, also rising the promenade would require new access points such as steps and ramps this would be much more costly to undertake and maintain over the same period of time as the council proposal, or that's I read into it.
Cost, to raise the existing sea wall does not mean you have to put it on top of the existing one. Low cost, colored, composite sheet piles are sturdy, long lasting, easy to place etc.etc. There is no requirement to raise the prom, the sheet piles would be on the seaward side of the existing wall and would be laterally supported by it. The beach huts would remain, but loose their views. The cost of beach access would not be high and could be limited in number. Construction time would be considerably less as these sheets can be driven in groups of 4-6 at a time. Once in place there is no maintenance requirement, grass cutting etc.. It would have a suitable capping to enhance its appearance. Transport cost and traffic movement would be considerably less. I could go on but wont, i think there are better ways, we need to think outside the box.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Life in a seaside town[/bold] wrote: This may have been asked before, but why not raise the existing sea wall ?[/p][/quote]Cost, to rise the current seawall (as proposed by the anti Council wall proposal people) would require the entire section of promenade to also be raised along with the beach huts, this would also require the mains and drainage systems needing to be change and the current seawall to require new foundations the length of the works, also rising the promenade would require new access points such as steps and ramps this would be much more costly to undertake and maintain over the same period of time as the council proposal, or that's I read into it.[/p][/quote]Cost, to raise the existing sea wall does not mean you have to put it on top of the existing one. Low cost, colored, composite sheet piles are sturdy, long lasting, easy to place etc.etc. There is no requirement to raise the prom, the sheet piles would be on the seaward side of the existing wall and would be laterally supported by it. The beach huts would remain, but loose their views. The cost of beach access would not be high and could be limited in number. Construction time would be considerably less as these sheets can be driven in groups of 4-6 at a time. Once in place there is no maintenance requirement, grass cutting etc.. It would have a suitable capping to enhance its appearance. Transport cost and traffic movement would be considerably less. I could go on but wont, i think there are better ways, we need to think outside the box. Life in a seaside town
  • Score: 1

9:05pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Joe Clark wrote:
People keep going on about the number of people against the seawall proposal and percentages of people who objected but that is irrelevant a billion people could all say they are against it but in planning law it is NOT the quantity of objections but the quality of objections, if you object on grounds of I don’t like it so am against it, the objection can be dismissed as not liking the way something looks is not grounds to dismiss the application.

This is known as a Non-material planning objection, thus the objection can be ignored as it is not a valid reason to dismiss a planning application, other Non-material planning considerations include:

Business competition: Seeing as no commercial interests are included in the proposal then this one can be ignored.

Loss of views: There is no planning law enshrining a “view” so again anyone submitting an objection to loss of the view can have their objection dismissed.

Damage to property fears: Again there is no planning law to take in to account the rick of any property damage fears,

Rights of way: There is no planning law stating all rights of way must be retained, as a matter of fact councils and companies can apply for permission to permanently close a right of way.

Covenants: None exist on the land.

Disturbance during development: Like any building project even if you are having a new kitchen fitted you have to allow for noise during construction.

Personal issues: It is not a justified reason to dismiss a planning application on the grounds that, You just don’t agree with it.

Like I have been stating above you MUST have a legally recognised planning reason to object to something, making frivolous objections en-mass can actually damage an objector/s stand point and lead to many objections being turned down and not counted as part of the planning hearing process.
Could not an objection be the wall is considered 'anti-social'?
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: People keep going on about the number of people against the seawall proposal and percentages of people who objected but that is irrelevant a billion people could all say they are against it but in planning law it is NOT the quantity of objections but the quality of objections, if you object on grounds of I don’t like it so am against it, the objection can be dismissed as not liking the way something looks is not grounds to dismiss the application. This is known as a Non-material planning objection, thus the objection can be ignored as it is not a valid reason to dismiss a planning application, other Non-material planning considerations include: Business competition: Seeing as no commercial interests are included in the proposal then this one can be ignored. Loss of views: There is no planning law enshrining a “view” so again anyone submitting an objection to loss of the view can have their objection dismissed. Damage to property fears: Again there is no planning law to take in to account the rick of any property damage fears, Rights of way: There is no planning law stating all rights of way must be retained, as a matter of fact councils and companies can apply for permission to permanently close a right of way. Covenants: None exist on the land. Disturbance during development: Like any building project even if you are having a new kitchen fitted you have to allow for noise during construction. Personal issues: It is not a justified reason to dismiss a planning application on the grounds that, You just don’t agree with it. Like I have been stating above you MUST have a legally recognised planning reason to object to something, making frivolous objections en-mass can actually damage an objector/s stand point and lead to many objections being turned down and not counted as part of the planning hearing process.[/p][/quote]Could not an objection be the wall is considered 'anti-social'? ThisYear
  • Score: 0

11:08pm Wed 12 Mar 14

seasider270 says...

I would have thought that if one thing had been learnt this winter it was that building houses in a flood plain was a "bad idea"! Given that the area in question even now is known for flooding, not from the sea but from rainwater this surely must be in the category of "very bad idea".

That a few local councillors have been so keen to support such a bad idea, at such a high electoral cost, is really curious and perhaps worthy of further investigation. One "larger than life" councillor has even been forwarding copies of the developer's literature to anyone who asks! The whole thing is worthy of a Private Eye "Rotten Boroughs" expose!
I would have thought that if one thing had been learnt this winter it was that building houses in a flood plain was a "bad idea"! Given that the area in question even now is known for flooding, not from the sea but from rainwater this surely must be in the category of "very bad idea". That a few local councillors have been so keen to support such a bad idea, at such a high electoral cost, is really curious and perhaps worthy of further investigation. One "larger than life" councillor has even been forwarding copies of the developer's literature to anyone who asks! The whole thing is worthy of a Private Eye "Rotten Boroughs" expose! seasider270
  • Score: 8

1:37pm Fri 14 Mar 14

locallad1 says...

bungs, bungs and more bungs. all politicians stink. You've only got to see some of the planning applications that have been agreed in the last 10 years to know how financially worthwhile it is to be a councillor.....
bungs, bungs and more bungs. all politicians stink. You've only got to see some of the planning applications that have been agreed in the last 10 years to know how financially worthwhile it is to be a councillor..... locallad1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree