More holes appear in island’s seawall

Echo: More holes appear in island’s seawall More holes appear in island’s seawall

MORE holes have appeared in Canvey’s old seawall just as another severe storm battered the UK.

Another huge section has been torn away by fierce winds leaving vast areas of the old coastal defences exposed, as more severe weather hit on Friday.

Concerned councillors reported large concrete slabs and chunks of asphalt breaking away from the old seawall, to the Environment Agency in August, but the damage has still not been fixed.

Serious concerns have been raised about the structural integrity of the pathway overhead, which was built alongside the new seawall after the great flood in 1953. The slabs provide a vital part of the island’s coastal protection by reducing the impact of waves striking the seawall above.

Concerns have also been raised about the gateway to the main sluice on the seafront, which has been taken away by the tide.

Dave Blackwell, county councillor and leader of the Canvey Independent Party, said: “There is a great hole there and it’s got about four or five times bigger in the past week. I’ve never seen anything like it.

“I’m really concerned it’s going to get worse, with the bad weather they’re predicting.

“The grill covering the sluice has gone and left a big opening for anyone to fall into. It’s so dangerous.”

It comes as a 30ft hole was discovered in the garrison sea defences in Shoebury, caused by rough seas on New Year’s Day.

Colin Letchford, from the Friends of Concord Beach group, said: “The fierce storms really have wreaked havoc on the seafront.

“There are at least three gaping holes and they’re getting bigger.

“There is no danger to Canvey as we have the new seawall, but people see it and get worried.”

Canvey county councillor Ray Howard, who sits on the regional flood and coastal committee for the Anglian region, said he will be taking up the issue at their next meeting.

He said: “I’ve spoken to the top officials about this, because we want this work done as quickly as possible.

“We want this work done very quickly, because we don’t want this to deteriorate any further, especially as we’ve had some awful weather ahead.”

A spokeswoman for the Environment Agency said: “We are aware of the damage and we did start work on it before Christmas. However, high tides have meant we had to stop work.

“We are hoping to finish the work during January, but have to work around the high tides.

However, it remains a high priority for us to fix it.”

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:09pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Howard Cháse says...

Mobilise the concerbed residents and get them out there shifting and resiting slabs quick.
Mobilise the concerbed residents and get them out there shifting and resiting slabs quick. Howard Cháse

6:10pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Howard Cháse says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
Mobilise the concerbed residents and get them out there shifting and resiting slabs quick.
*concerned. ...


if you wait for an official response it might be too late....
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: Mobilise the concerbed residents and get them out there shifting and resiting slabs quick.[/p][/quote]*concerned. ... if you wait for an official response it might be too late.... Howard Cháse

6:11pm Tue 7 Jan 14

John T Pharro says...

It is not "more holes" it is a failure to repair a smaller hole. It "remains a high priority" is a pathetic excuse. The original damage was known about months ago and is a total failure of the Environment Agency to take more urgent action. Result it is now going to cost far more. Apology required from the Environment Agency not excuses and a statement that in future repairs will be made immediately.
It is not "more holes" it is a failure to repair a smaller hole. It "remains a high priority" is a pathetic excuse. The original damage was known about months ago and is a total failure of the Environment Agency to take more urgent action. Result it is now going to cost far more. Apology required from the Environment Agency not excuses and a statement that in future repairs will be made immediately. John T Pharro

6:28pm Tue 7 Jan 14

whataday says...

Just out of interest do the Greater London Councils have to pay any compensation to this region if flood damage is incurred because the Thames Barriers are used?
Just out of interest do the Greater London Councils have to pay any compensation to this region if flood damage is incurred because the Thames Barriers are used? whataday

6:30pm Tue 7 Jan 14

whataday says...

Just out of curiosity - do the Greater London Councils have to pay this area compensation if flood damage is suffered when the Thames Barrier being used
Just out of curiosity - do the Greater London Councils have to pay this area compensation if flood damage is suffered when the Thames Barrier being used whataday

6:40pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

Underneath the tarred rocks, which slope down to this beached area, is shingle, how difficult is it to imagine the damage waiting to happen, once the outer crust of this sea defence has gone?
Time is not on their side, as once this outer crust, breaks up, the very foundation, of the sea wall will crumble, resulting in failure, the costs of rectification are minimal, in comparison to the cost of rebuild.
Underneath the tarred rocks, which slope down to this beached area, is shingle, how difficult is it to imagine the damage waiting to happen, once the outer crust of this sea defence has gone? Time is not on their side, as once this outer crust, breaks up, the very foundation, of the sea wall will crumble, resulting in failure, the costs of rectification are minimal, in comparison to the cost of rebuild. Nowthatsworthknowing

7:35pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

John T Pharro wrote:
It is not "more holes" it is a failure to repair a smaller hole. It "remains a high priority" is a pathetic excuse. The original damage was known about months ago and is a total failure of the Environment Agency to take more urgent action. Result it is now going to cost far more. Apology required from the Environment Agency not excuses and a statement that in future repairs will be made immediately.
Again the environment agency have done the bare minimum, the whole fiasco of the Canvey floods, to the recent damage, to numerous parts of the sea wall, has to be pointed out to them via beach walkers, even then they shrug their responsibilities, looking for excuses, when all that is needed is action.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: It is not "more holes" it is a failure to repair a smaller hole. It "remains a high priority" is a pathetic excuse. The original damage was known about months ago and is a total failure of the Environment Agency to take more urgent action. Result it is now going to cost far more. Apology required from the Environment Agency not excuses and a statement that in future repairs will be made immediately.[/p][/quote]Again the environment agency have done the bare minimum, the whole fiasco of the Canvey floods, to the recent damage, to numerous parts of the sea wall, has to be pointed out to them via beach walkers, even then they shrug their responsibilities, looking for excuses, when all that is needed is action. Nowthatsworthknowing

8:18pm Tue 7 Jan 14

marshman says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
Underneath the tarred rocks, which slope down to this beached area, is shingle, how difficult is it to imagine the damage waiting to happen, once the outer crust of this sea defence has gone? Time is not on their side, as once this outer crust, breaks up, the very foundation, of the sea wall will crumble, resulting in failure, the costs of rectification are minimal, in comparison to the cost of rebuild.
'The very foundation of the seawall', as you put it, is at least 60 feet below the levels shown in the picture. The erosion you're hinting at will take a couple of hundred years at least to materialise. I'm sure a few loose pathing slabs can be dropped back into place before then.

Take this story for what it is, needless scaremongering by a weak and ineffective self promoting media hungry councillor and doddery old git who should know better.
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: Underneath the tarred rocks, which slope down to this beached area, is shingle, how difficult is it to imagine the damage waiting to happen, once the outer crust of this sea defence has gone? Time is not on their side, as once this outer crust, breaks up, the very foundation, of the sea wall will crumble, resulting in failure, the costs of rectification are minimal, in comparison to the cost of rebuild.[/p][/quote]'The very foundation of the seawall', as you put it, is at least 60 feet below the levels shown in the picture. The erosion you're hinting at will take a couple of hundred years at least to materialise. I'm sure a few loose pathing slabs can be dropped back into place before then. Take this story for what it is, needless scaremongering by a weak and ineffective self promoting media hungry councillor and doddery old git who should know better. marshman

7:25am Wed 8 Jan 14

LastLaugh2 says...

Tis the Law of Nature, take from the sea some land, and the the angry sea, will show her hand
Tis the Law of Nature, take from the sea some land, and the the angry sea, will show her hand LastLaugh2

6:38pm Wed 8 Jan 14

John T Pharro says...

marshman wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
Underneath the tarred rocks, which slope down to this beached area, is shingle, how difficult is it to imagine the damage waiting to happen, once the outer crust of this sea defence has gone? Time is not on their side, as once this outer crust, breaks up, the very foundation, of the sea wall will crumble, resulting in failure, the costs of rectification are minimal, in comparison to the cost of rebuild.
'The very foundation of the seawall', as you put it, is at least 60 feet below the levels shown in the picture. The erosion you're hinting at will take a couple of hundred years at least to materialise. I'm sure a few loose pathing slabs can be dropped back into place before then.

Take this story for what it is, needless scaremongering by a weak and ineffective self promoting media hungry councillor and doddery old git who should know better.
So you think that there is no need to repair it then? Do you agree or disagree had it been repaired earlier it would not cost more to repair now?
[quote][p][bold]marshman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: Underneath the tarred rocks, which slope down to this beached area, is shingle, how difficult is it to imagine the damage waiting to happen, once the outer crust of this sea defence has gone? Time is not on their side, as once this outer crust, breaks up, the very foundation, of the sea wall will crumble, resulting in failure, the costs of rectification are minimal, in comparison to the cost of rebuild.[/p][/quote]'The very foundation of the seawall', as you put it, is at least 60 feet below the levels shown in the picture. The erosion you're hinting at will take a couple of hundred years at least to materialise. I'm sure a few loose pathing slabs can be dropped back into place before then. Take this story for what it is, needless scaremongering by a weak and ineffective self promoting media hungry councillor and doddery old git who should know better.[/p][/quote]So you think that there is no need to repair it then? Do you agree or disagree had it been repaired earlier it would not cost more to repair now? John T Pharro

1:08am Thu 9 Jan 14

marshman says...

Should have been repaired immediately in my opinion. It wasn't that long ago Canvey had a foreshore office and pool of labour for little jobs like that.
Should have been repaired immediately in my opinion. It wasn't that long ago Canvey had a foreshore office and pool of labour for little jobs like that. marshman

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