Shoebury residents say "we don't want this sea wall here"

Southend Standard: The camp at Shoebury Common The camp at Shoebury Common

RESIDENTS turned out en masse in a massive show of people power to send a message to Southend Council that they want their sea wall plans dropped.

More than 200 turned up this lunchtime to say “no” to the plan to build a two metre high earth embankment across Shoebury Common.Southend Standard:

They followed a camp set up by a handful of Skipp protesters from Friday until this evening, to demonstrate their opposition to the scheme.

The council maintains that their preferred option is the least intrusive and would protect 500 homes.

Southend Standard:

  • See Monday's Echo for the full story.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:30pm Sun 8 Dec 13

John Bull 40 says...

They haven't found a "Saxon king" buried there have they?
They haven't found a "Saxon king" buried there have they? John Bull 40

5:52pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Living the La Vida Legra says...

So when their houses flood and they can't sell I wounder what their opinion will be then
Sign a disclaimer and no sea wall
So when their houses flood and they can't sell I wounder what their opinion will be then Sign a disclaimer and no sea wall Living the La Vida Legra

5:55pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

I hope they clear their disgusting mess away
I hope they clear their disgusting mess away Nowthatsworthknowing

6:19pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Democrat says...

Two metre landscaped bank or a salt water lake covering homes? Hmmmm - no brainer really.
Two metre landscaped bank or a salt water lake covering homes? Hmmmm - no brainer really. Democrat

6:21pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Joe Clark says...

The sign states "Save Our Common" So is it being concreted over? The pictures I have seen and what I have been able to find on the internet show that the green area will still be there only a bit higher this is backed up with the information that soil from the cliffs will be used so just what is right?

is it

A: No green as "Save our Common" banner make it sound as if it will no longer be there.

or

B: The green will stay.

If B surely by saying "Save out Common" is misleading and if deliberate would it not be a lie?
The sign states "Save Our Common" So is it being concreted over? The pictures I have seen and what I have been able to find on the internet show that the green area will still be there only a bit higher this is backed up with the information that soil from the cliffs will be used so just what is right? is it A: No green as "Save our Common" banner make it sound as if it will no longer be there. or B: The green will stay. If B surely by saying "Save out Common" is misleading and if deliberate would it not be a lie? Joe Clark

6:45pm Sun 8 Dec 13

fletch12107 says...

Southend Borough Council don't give a **** what the public thinks. 10,000 people wanted Priory House kept open but alas it will close.
Southend Borough Council don't give a **** what the public thinks. 10,000 people wanted Priory House kept open but alas it will close. fletch12107

6:48pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

fletch12107 wrote:
Southend Borough Council don't give a **** what the public thinks. 10,000 people wanted Priory House kept open but alas it will close.
Really? odd that only 14 people stood outside with candles,
[quote][p][bold]fletch12107[/bold] wrote: Southend Borough Council don't give a **** what the public thinks. 10,000 people wanted Priory House kept open but alas it will close.[/p][/quote]Really? odd that only 14 people stood outside with candles, Nowthatsworthknowing

6:55pm Sun 8 Dec 13

SARFENDMAN says...

John Bull 40 wrote:
They haven't found a "Saxon king" buried there have they?
You're not meant to find out these things as all a closely guarded secret from seawall proposal/approvals to exhibitions of Saxon Prince.
[quote][p][bold]John Bull 40[/bold] wrote: They haven't found a "Saxon king" buried there have they?[/p][/quote]You're not meant to find out these things as all a closely guarded secret from seawall proposal/approvals to exhibitions of Saxon Prince. SARFENDMAN

6:59pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

SARFENDMAN wrote:
John Bull 40 wrote:
They haven't found a "Saxon king" buried there have they?
You're not meant to find out these things as all a closely guarded secret from seawall proposal/approvals to exhibitions of Saxon Prince.
IT WILL BE BUILT, at any cost, no debate
[quote][p][bold]SARFENDMAN[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Bull 40[/bold] wrote: They haven't found a "Saxon king" buried there have they?[/p][/quote]You're not meant to find out these things as all a closely guarded secret from seawall proposal/approvals to exhibitions of Saxon Prince.[/p][/quote]IT WILL BE BUILT, at any cost, no debate Nowthatsworthknowing

7:02pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

fletch12107 wrote:
Southend Borough Council don't give a **** what the public thinks. 10,000 people wanted Priory House kept open but alas it will close.
I wouldn't mind buying it from the council, make a nice care home, a good earner.
[quote][p][bold]fletch12107[/bold] wrote: Southend Borough Council don't give a **** what the public thinks. 10,000 people wanted Priory House kept open but alas it will close.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't mind buying it from the council, make a nice care home, a good earner. Nowthatsworthknowing

7:27pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Southend Andy says...

Get them to sign a contract where no sea wall is built & when there homes flood they can't go running to the papers blaming the council.
Get them to sign a contract where no sea wall is built & when there homes flood they can't go running to the papers blaming the council. Southend Andy

7:38pm Sun 8 Dec 13

shoeburyden says...

Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
So when their houses flood and they can't sell I wounder what their opinion will be then
Sign a disclaimer and no sea wall
450 homes have not yet been built , the developer has not paid the £800,000 bribe to the council, plus any other incentives he is paying the councilors from his estimated £11 mil profit
[quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: So when their houses flood and they can't sell I wounder what their opinion will be then Sign a disclaimer and no sea wall[/p][/quote]450 homes have not yet been built , the developer has not paid the £800,000 bribe to the council, plus any other incentives he is paying the councilors from his estimated £11 mil profit shoeburyden

8:32pm Sun 8 Dec 13

geriatric says...

This week proved that there is no flood risk. We are being misled by the Council, for no apparent sensible reason, to despoil our seafront.
Councillors should be aware that elections are coming and unless they recognise who they are responsible to, they will not be there much longer.
This week proved that there is no flood risk. We are being misled by the Council, for no apparent sensible reason, to despoil our seafront. Councillors should be aware that elections are coming and unless they recognise who they are responsible to, they will not be there much longer. geriatric

8:51pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Democrat says...

geriatric wrote:
This week proved that there is no flood risk. We are being misled by the Council, for no apparent sensible reason, to despoil our seafront.
Councillors should be aware that elections are coming and unless they recognise who they are responsible to, they will not be there much longer.
There was a major risk I can assure you, and had the sea wall been breached as it was further up the coast you would have been the first to complain. This time it was measured as above the 1953 Canvey Island tide surge and only stopped because of sea defence work done in the 1980s. Do you want to wait until more deaths before improving sea defences just like before 1953?
[quote][p][bold]geriatric[/bold] wrote: This week proved that there is no flood risk. We are being misled by the Council, for no apparent sensible reason, to despoil our seafront. Councillors should be aware that elections are coming and unless they recognise who they are responsible to, they will not be there much longer.[/p][/quote]There was a major risk I can assure you, and had the sea wall been breached as it was further up the coast you would have been the first to complain. This time it was measured as above the 1953 Canvey Island tide surge and only stopped because of sea defence work done in the 1980s. Do you want to wait until more deaths before improving sea defences just like before 1953? Democrat

9:51pm Sun 8 Dec 13

geriatric says...

It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.
It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering. geriatric

10:11pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Democrat says...

geriatric wrote:
It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.
No it is not scaremongering. The wall held this time because of the heightened wall. The sea level is rising. You can't build a wall (or in this case a nice embankment) in the 2 days notice you would get. It is you risking life in order to keep your view. Try reading the science first.
[quote][p][bold]geriatric[/bold] wrote: It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.[/p][/quote]No it is not scaremongering. The wall held this time because of the heightened wall. The sea level is rising. You can't build a wall (or in this case a nice embankment) in the 2 days notice you would get. It is you risking life in order to keep your view. Try reading the science first. Democrat

10:13pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Democrat says...

Democrat wrote:
geriatric wrote:
It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.
No it is not scaremongering. The wall held this time because of the heightened wall. The sea level is rising. You can't build a wall (or in this case a nice embankment) in the 2 days notice you would get. It is you risking life in order to keep your view. Try reading the science first.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-nor
folk-25282906
[quote][p][bold]Democrat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geriatric[/bold] wrote: It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.[/p][/quote]No it is not scaremongering. The wall held this time because of the heightened wall. The sea level is rising. You can't build a wall (or in this case a nice embankment) in the 2 days notice you would get. It is you risking life in order to keep your view. Try reading the science first.[/p][/quote]http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-nor folk-25282906 Democrat

10:19pm Sun 8 Dec 13

GrumpyofLeigh says...

The existing defences proved adequate for a 1-in-60 year event last week - are the proposed defences REALLY required? And if the new homes are unsellable without, why isnt the developer picking up the tab?
The existing defences proved adequate for a 1-in-60 year event last week - are the proposed defences REALLY required? And if the new homes are unsellable without, why isnt the developer picking up the tab? GrumpyofLeigh

10:44pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Joe Clark says...

geriatric wrote:
This week proved that there is no flood risk. We are being misled by the Council, for no apparent sensible reason, to despoil our seafront.
Councillors should be aware that elections are coming and unless they recognise who they are responsible to, they will not be there much longer.
The main reason it did not flood was because the tide was a 4.2 with 1.0 on top (storm surge) this equals 5.2 still what is a relatively low tide also the predicted winds did not reach Southend reducing the wave action, if there had been a 6.2 tide with a 1.0 on top equating 7.2 and the strong winds had reached Southend then the wall would have been topped.
[quote][p][bold]geriatric[/bold] wrote: This week proved that there is no flood risk. We are being misled by the Council, for no apparent sensible reason, to despoil our seafront. Councillors should be aware that elections are coming and unless they recognise who they are responsible to, they will not be there much longer.[/p][/quote]The main reason it did not flood was because the tide was a 4.2 with 1.0 on top (storm surge) this equals 5.2 still what is a relatively low tide also the predicted winds did not reach Southend reducing the wave action, if there had been a 6.2 tide with a 1.0 on top equating 7.2 and the strong winds had reached Southend then the wall would have been topped. Joe Clark

10:56pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Democrat says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
The existing defences proved adequate for a 1-in-60 year event last week - are the proposed defences REALLY required? And if the new homes are unsellable without, why isnt the developer picking up the tab?
Once the estuary gets over the wall into the flood plain it won't just be the development. It will go at least to North Shoebury, and west to at least Thorpe Bay. So wake up as this is more than just your backyard.


http://maps.environm
ent-agency.gov.uk/wi
yby/wiybyController?
x=588180.0&y=186223.
0&topic=floodmap&ep=
map&scale=9&location
=SS1%201AA&lang=_e&l
ayerGroups=default&d
istance=&textonly=of
f#x=594265&y=185958&
lg=1,&scale=11
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: The existing defences proved adequate for a 1-in-60 year event last week - are the proposed defences REALLY required? And if the new homes are unsellable without, why isnt the developer picking up the tab?[/p][/quote]Once the estuary gets over the wall into the flood plain it won't just be the development. It will go at least to North Shoebury, and west to at least Thorpe Bay. So wake up as this is more than just your backyard. http://maps.environm ent-agency.gov.uk/wi yby/wiybyController? x=588180.0&y=186223. 0&topic=floodmap&ep= map&scale=9&location =SS1%201AA&lang=_e&l ayerGroups=default&d istance=&textonly=of f#x=594265&y=185958& lg=1,&scale=11 Democrat

11:18pm Sun 8 Dec 13

GrumpyofLeigh says...

I'm in Leigh so of limited relevance but have an interest as I am paying for it. But what is the statistical likelihood of the combination of factors required for Thorpe Bay to get its feet wet? Once in 100 years? 200 years? Clearly above once in 60 years. In which case, is it a good use of public funds particularly when a prime beneficiary will be a private sector developer?
I'm in Leigh so of limited relevance but have an interest as I am paying for it. But what is the statistical likelihood of the combination of factors required for Thorpe Bay to get its feet wet? Once in 100 years? 200 years? Clearly above once in 60 years. In which case, is it a good use of public funds particularly when a prime beneficiary will be a private sector developer? GrumpyofLeigh

11:33pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Democrat says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
I'm in Leigh so of limited relevance but have an interest as I am paying for it. But what is the statistical likelihood of the combination of factors required for Thorpe Bay to get its feet wet? Once in 100 years? 200 years? Clearly above once in 60 years. In which case, is it a good use of public funds particularly when a prime beneficiary will be a private sector developer?
With the rising sea level probably sooner. But once in 100 or 200 years statistically it could be next week and then not for 200 years - wanna risk it? Bit like winning the lottery. Odds are long but someone does.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: I'm in Leigh so of limited relevance but have an interest as I am paying for it. But what is the statistical likelihood of the combination of factors required for Thorpe Bay to get its feet wet? Once in 100 years? 200 years? Clearly above once in 60 years. In which case, is it a good use of public funds particularly when a prime beneficiary will be a private sector developer?[/p][/quote]With the rising sea level probably sooner. But once in 100 or 200 years statistically it could be next week and then not for 200 years - wanna risk it? Bit like winning the lottery. Odds are long but someone does. Democrat

11:38pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Democrat says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
I'm in Leigh so of limited relevance but have an interest as I am paying for it. But what is the statistical likelihood of the combination of factors required for Thorpe Bay to get its feet wet? Once in 100 years? 200 years? Clearly above once in 60 years. In which case, is it a good use of public funds particularly when a prime beneficiary will be a private sector developer?
If you live in Leigh you might want to copy and paste this:

http://maps.environm
ent-agency.gov.uk/wi
yby/wiybyController?
value=ss9+2dw&submit
.x=0&submit.y=0&subm
it=Search%09&lang=_e
&ep=map&topic=floodm
ap&layerGroups=defau
lt&scale=9&textonly=
off#x=584166&y=18566
1&lg=1,&scale=6
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: I'm in Leigh so of limited relevance but have an interest as I am paying for it. But what is the statistical likelihood of the combination of factors required for Thorpe Bay to get its feet wet? Once in 100 years? 200 years? Clearly above once in 60 years. In which case, is it a good use of public funds particularly when a prime beneficiary will be a private sector developer?[/p][/quote]If you live in Leigh you might want to copy and paste this: http://maps.environm ent-agency.gov.uk/wi yby/wiybyController? value=ss9+2dw&submit .x=0&submit.y=0&subm it=Search%09&lang=_e &ep=map&topic=floodm ap&layerGroups=defau lt&scale=9&textonly= off#x=584166&y=18566 1&lg=1,&scale=6 Democrat

9:50am Mon 9 Dec 13

geriatric says...

Democrat wrote:
geriatric wrote:
It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.
No it is not scaremongering. The wall held this time because of the heightened wall. The sea level is rising. You can't build a wall (or in this case a nice embankment) in the 2 days notice you would get. It is you risking life in order to keep your view. Try reading the science first.
Don't worry, we are building a boat. We have a bulk order in with the zoo, but finding 2 of everything is a bit of a task!
[quote][p][bold]Democrat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geriatric[/bold] wrote: It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.[/p][/quote]No it is not scaremongering. The wall held this time because of the heightened wall. The sea level is rising. You can't build a wall (or in this case a nice embankment) in the 2 days notice you would get. It is you risking life in order to keep your view. Try reading the science first.[/p][/quote]Don't worry, we are building a boat. We have a bulk order in with the zoo, but finding 2 of everything is a bit of a task! geriatric

10:27am Mon 9 Dec 13

JayRSS1 says...

At the slip way where the Coast guard station is, is this going to be raised/blocked off? Or will the water just gush around the back of this wall making it completely useless? And what about the other access points to the seafront?
Are these all going to be make inaccessable or are they going to be left as is making this wall redundant if water can just flow round it?
I haven't seen the plans but surly to make it effective the WHOLE sea front would need this defence for it to be effective.
At the slip way where the Coast guard station is, is this going to be raised/blocked off? Or will the water just gush around the back of this wall making it completely useless? And what about the other access points to the seafront? Are these all going to be make inaccessable or are they going to be left as is making this wall redundant if water can just flow round it? I haven't seen the plans but surly to make it effective the WHOLE sea front would need this defence for it to be effective. JayRSS1

2:40pm Mon 9 Dec 13

kidkid says...

To waste money on something that might happen in the next 100-200 years is ludicrous. Whether you complain, protest or whatever it will be built. The council dont care what you think, Just ask Democrat, He sounds like he works for them already.. It's being built for one purpose only, So developers can build new homes that the council can house people in, simple. If it was such a risk then the people that live around East Beach would have been evacuated, which they weren't.
To waste money on something that might happen in the next 100-200 years is ludicrous. Whether you complain, protest or whatever it will be built. The council dont care what you think, Just ask Democrat, He sounds like he works for them already.. It's being built for one purpose only, So developers can build new homes that the council can house people in, simple. If it was such a risk then the people that live around East Beach would have been evacuated, which they weren't. kidkid

3:22pm Mon 9 Dec 13

scrounger‎ says...

If they don't build a sea wall in Shoebury then where are they going to put all the soil they dug out from under Clifftown Parade?
If they don't build a sea wall in Shoebury then where are they going to put all the soil they dug out from under Clifftown Parade? scrounger‎

5:08pm Mon 9 Dec 13

allseeingeyes says...

Joe Clark wrote:
geriatric wrote:
This week proved that there is no flood risk. We are being misled by the Council, for no apparent sensible reason, to despoil our seafront.
Councillors should be aware that elections are coming and unless they recognise who they are responsible to, they will not be there much longer.
The main reason it did not flood was because the tide was a 4.2 with 1.0 on top (storm surge) this equals 5.2 still what is a relatively low tide also the predicted winds did not reach Southend reducing the wave action, if there had been a 6.2 tide with a 1.0 on top equating 7.2 and the strong winds had reached Southend then the wall would have been topped.
YOU DANGEROUSLY MISLEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS JOE CLARK

Tide was a SPRING TIDE HIGHEST of the year at 6.2 metres with the largest storm surge since records began on top of this making 7.2 m at Shoebury.

This was the 1 in 200 year event which totally vindicates the good people of shoebury who have been lied to and misled by Councillors and council officers even in council chambers. Shameful and very sad for southend as a whole.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geriatric[/bold] wrote: This week proved that there is no flood risk. We are being misled by the Council, for no apparent sensible reason, to despoil our seafront. Councillors should be aware that elections are coming and unless they recognise who they are responsible to, they will not be there much longer.[/p][/quote]The main reason it did not flood was because the tide was a 4.2 with 1.0 on top (storm surge) this equals 5.2 still what is a relatively low tide also the predicted winds did not reach Southend reducing the wave action, if there had been a 6.2 tide with a 1.0 on top equating 7.2 and the strong winds had reached Southend then the wall would have been topped.[/p][/quote]YOU DANGEROUSLY MISLEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS JOE CLARK Tide was a SPRING TIDE HIGHEST of the year at 6.2 metres with the largest storm surge since records began on top of this making 7.2 m at Shoebury. This was the 1 in 200 year event which totally vindicates the good people of shoebury who have been lied to and misled by Councillors and council officers even in council chambers. Shameful and very sad for southend as a whole. allseeingeyes

5:31pm Mon 9 Dec 13

echoforum says...

A bunch of sea- front Multi- Millionaires,worried about the value of their property portfolios.
Whilst the rest of us drown.
A bunch of sea- front Multi- Millionaires,worried about the value of their property portfolios. Whilst the rest of us drown. echoforum

7:31pm Mon 9 Dec 13

iknowbetter says...

kidkid wrote:
To waste money on something that might happen in the next 100-200 years is ludicrous. Whether you complain, protest or whatever it will be built. The council dont care what you think, Just ask Democrat, He sounds like he works for them already.. It's being built for one purpose only, So developers can build new homes that the council can house people in, simple. If it was such a risk then the people that live around East Beach would have been evacuated, which they weren't.
So your issue isn't the seawall as such its the fear of having developers build homes.
Not sure where you get your statistics from? who is to say it wont happen in the next 5 years? Doesn't sound like such a waste of money when its looked upon in that light. I would be pretty convinced the Council have decided to spend this money whilst having taken some serious advice from all the relevant agencies, unlike most if not all the people on here.
I thinks its safe to say, if those affected in 1953 had the choice back then the answer would be a resounding "waste the bloody money please" or not as it turned out :)
[quote][p][bold]kidkid[/bold] wrote: To waste money on something that might happen in the next 100-200 years is ludicrous. Whether you complain, protest or whatever it will be built. The council dont care what you think, Just ask Democrat, He sounds like he works for them already.. It's being built for one purpose only, So developers can build new homes that the council can house people in, simple. If it was such a risk then the people that live around East Beach would have been evacuated, which they weren't.[/p][/quote]So your issue isn't the seawall as such its the fear of having developers build homes. Not sure where you get your statistics from? who is to say it wont happen in the next 5 years? Doesn't sound like such a waste of money when its looked upon in that light. I would be pretty convinced the Council have decided to spend this money whilst having taken some serious advice from all the relevant agencies, unlike most if not all the people on here. I thinks its safe to say, if those affected in 1953 had the choice back then the answer would be a resounding "waste the bloody money please" or not as it turned out :) iknowbetter

2:41pm Tue 10 Dec 13

exBillericayDicky says...

The problem as I see it is is that the surge we had is a 1 in 200 year event, and by blocking off the current flood plain area, any problem will be moved further down the coast. As I see it, :
Is a higher seawall needed ? Possibly,
When built, will there be homes built on the floodplain? Yes.

So the wall is therefore for the benefit of those not yet living there, not for the safety and protection of the current residents who have been fed mis-information so the council can do what they want against the wishes of those they serve.
The problem as I see it is is that the surge we had is a 1 in 200 year event, and by blocking off the current flood plain area, any problem will be moved further down the coast. As I see it, : Is a higher seawall needed ? Possibly, When built, will there be homes built on the floodplain? Yes. So the wall is therefore for the benefit of those not yet living there, not for the safety and protection of the current residents who have been fed mis-information so the council can do what they want against the wishes of those they serve. exBillericayDicky

4:46pm Tue 10 Dec 13

iknowbetter says...

exBillericayDicky wrote:
The problem as I see it is is that the surge we had is a 1 in 200 year event, and by blocking off the current flood plain area, any problem will be moved further down the coast. As I see it, :
Is a higher seawall needed ? Possibly,
When built, will there be homes built on the floodplain? Yes.

So the wall is therefore for the benefit of those not yet living there, not for the safety and protection of the current residents who have been fed mis-information so the council can do what they want against the wishes of those they serve.
So I'm correct in saying it has nothing to do with the sea wall, its more of a case of possible development.
[quote][p][bold]exBillericayDicky[/bold] wrote: The problem as I see it is is that the surge we had is a 1 in 200 year event, and by blocking off the current flood plain area, any problem will be moved further down the coast. As I see it, : Is a higher seawall needed ? Possibly, When built, will there be homes built on the floodplain? Yes. So the wall is therefore for the benefit of those not yet living there, not for the safety and protection of the current residents who have been fed mis-information so the council can do what they want against the wishes of those they serve.[/p][/quote]So I'm correct in saying it has nothing to do with the sea wall, its more of a case of possible development. iknowbetter

1:23pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Fred the Phoenix says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
I'm in Leigh so of limited relevance but have an interest as I am paying for it. But what is the statistical likelihood of the combination of factors required for Thorpe Bay to get its feet wet? Once in 100 years? 200 years? Clearly above once in 60 years. In which case, is it a good use of public funds particularly when a prime beneficiary will be a private sector developer?
You clearly don't understand statistics, it could happen in fifty years time or it could happen tomorrow.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: I'm in Leigh so of limited relevance but have an interest as I am paying for it. But what is the statistical likelihood of the combination of factors required for Thorpe Bay to get its feet wet? Once in 100 years? 200 years? Clearly above once in 60 years. In which case, is it a good use of public funds particularly when a prime beneficiary will be a private sector developer?[/p][/quote]You clearly don't understand statistics, it could happen in fifty years time or it could happen tomorrow. Fred the Phoenix

1:26pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Fred the Phoenix says...

geriatric wrote:
It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.
No it stopped because the tidal surge (or more correctly the surge of water caused by low air pressure) reached Southend an hour before high tide, if it had coincided with the high tide, as it did further up the coast, it would have been worse.
[quote][p][bold]geriatric[/bold] wrote: It was stopped because the present sea wall is perfectly adequate. The talk of deaths is scaremongering.[/p][/quote]No it stopped because the tidal surge (or more correctly the surge of water caused by low air pressure) reached Southend an hour before high tide, if it had coincided with the high tide, as it did further up the coast, it would have been worse. Fred the Phoenix

2:05pm Sat 14 Dec 13

BinDipper says...

The sea was lapping over the top of the promenade near the casino. Why no sea wall there? What about near Southchurch Park...a former area of swampland ?
The sea was lapping over the top of the promenade near the casino. Why no sea wall there? What about near Southchurch Park...a former area of swampland ? BinDipper

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