Vital seawall defence collapses on to Shoebury beach, leaving gaping hole

Southend Standard: Vital seawall defence collapses on to Shoebury beach, leaving gaping hole Vital seawall defence collapses on to Shoebury beach, leaving gaping hole

A 30FT-LONG hole has appeared in a seawall just a day before another severe storm hits the UK.

The huge section of the garrison seawall has collapsed after being ripped apart by rough seas on New Year’s Day.

Roger Hadley, Tory councillor for Shoebury, spotted the damage east of Barge Pier, while out walking his dog yesterday morning.

He claimed holes in the wall were first seen in April and was angry nothing has been down to plug them, especially as another storm front moves in this weekend.

Mr Hadley said: “The waves were coming over the top of the seawall.

“There was a hole reported last April, but nothing was done about it.

“The seawall is just mud now. If we have more rough seas I doubt it would last long, then we have the risk of flooding.”

Southend Standard:

The stretch of damaged wall is the responsibility of Country and Metropolitan, which is building new homes on land behind the wall.

Southend Council will take responsibility for the wall when development has finished, but with the subject of sea defences a hot topic in Shoebury, campaigners are concerned by the latest collapse.

Ray Bailey, a member of the Friends of Shoebury Common campaign group, said: “It’s unbelievable the council is still not responsible for the wall.

“There were no houses supposed to have been sold until the seawall was fixed properly, but clearly that is not the case.”

Mr Bailey complained about a large hole in the nearby Gunners Park coastline in November and he thinks yesterday’s collapse could be linked to the previous breach.

He added: “That damage suggested there could be more damage behind the wall, perhaps water has got in behind the wall and caused this dramatic collapse.”

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:13am Sun 5 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

Time to rush through the building of the super sea walls, forget all other building plans, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY
Time to rush through the building of the super sea walls, forget all other building plans, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: 13

10:39am Sun 5 Jan 14

Cor Blimey says...

That's not a hole!!!!
It's a slip of a top layer flood defence
Typical Echo scare tactics
That's not a hole!!!! It's a slip of a top layer flood defence Typical Echo scare tactics Cor Blimey
  • Score: 23

11:18am Sun 5 Jan 14

pendulum says...

"The seawall is just mud now" - so how come I can still see concrete?
"The seawall is just mud now" - so how come I can still see concrete? pendulum
  • Score: 25

11:19am Sun 5 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Cor Blimey wrote:
That's not a hole!!!!
It's a slip of a top layer flood defence
Typical Echo scare tactics
I agree...thats not a hole, and lets face it no one will fall into it..or through it will they.
[quote][p][bold]Cor Blimey[/bold] wrote: That's not a hole!!!! It's a slip of a top layer flood defence Typical Echo scare tactics[/p][/quote]I agree...thats not a hole, and lets face it no one will fall into it..or through it will they. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 17

11:43am Sun 5 Jan 14

pembury53 says...

very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted
very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted pembury53
  • Score: 11

11:47am Sun 5 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

pembury53 wrote:
very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted
First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted[/p][/quote]First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news... Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: 7

11:51am Sun 5 Jan 14

Howard Cháse says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted
First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...
That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted[/p][/quote]First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...[/p][/quote]That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably Howard Cháse
  • Score: 16

11:58am Sun 5 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted
First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...
That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably
Yes thats the consultation fee.....
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted[/p][/quote]First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...[/p][/quote]That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably[/p][/quote]Yes thats the consultation fee..... Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: 10

12:20pm Sun 5 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

"A 30FT-LONG hole has appeared in a seawall just a day before another severe storm hits the UK.

The huge section of the garrison seawall has collapsed after being ripped apart by rough seas on New Year’s Day".


More like it...

A 30ft long section(not really 30ft) of concrete slabs and rubble has been dislogded just a day before another winter storm hits the uk.

The large section of garrison sea wall has fallen away caused by some rough sea on New Years Day.
"A 30FT-LONG hole has appeared in a seawall just a day before another severe storm hits the UK. The huge section of the garrison seawall has collapsed after being ripped apart by rough seas on New Year’s Day". More like it... A 30ft long section(not really 30ft) of concrete slabs and rubble has been dislogded just a day before another winter storm hits the uk. The large section of garrison sea wall has fallen away caused by some rough sea on New Years Day. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 9

12:58pm Sun 5 Jan 14

pembury53 says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted
First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...
That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably
Yes thats the consultation fee.....
'fly by night' Sea Defence Restorations Ltd
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted[/p][/quote]First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...[/p][/quote]That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably[/p][/quote]Yes thats the consultation fee.....[/p][/quote]'fly by night' Sea Defence Restorations Ltd pembury53
  • Score: 4

1:09pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Nebs says...

pembury53 wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted
First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...
That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably
Yes thats the consultation fee.....
'fly by night' Sea Defence Restorations Ltd
There must be a group of local builders who could get together to tender for jobs like this.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted[/p][/quote]First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...[/p][/quote]That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably[/p][/quote]Yes thats the consultation fee.....[/p][/quote]'fly by night' Sea Defence Restorations Ltd[/p][/quote]There must be a group of local builders who could get together to tender for jobs like this. Nebs
  • Score: 9

1:30pm Sun 5 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Nebs wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
Howard Cháse wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted
First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...
That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably
Yes thats the consultation fee.....
'fly by night' Sea Defence Restorations Ltd
There must be a group of local builders who could get together to tender for jobs like this.
Yes who did the last lot...was it KLC..a local firm.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: very dramatic....... couple of bags of dust and a mixer, sorted[/p][/quote]First quote was 110 K, looks like they will start the repair very soon, gales, not all bad news...[/p][/quote]That's just how much SBC will be paying some consultancy to whip out a quick artist's impression of how it might look when they get round to repairing it, probably[/p][/quote]Yes thats the consultation fee.....[/p][/quote]'fly by night' Sea Defence Restorations Ltd[/p][/quote]There must be a group of local builders who could get together to tender for jobs like this.[/p][/quote]Yes who did the last lot...was it KLC..a local firm. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 1

2:31pm Sun 5 Jan 14

emcee says...

It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid.

The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.
It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid. The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath. emcee
  • Score: 21

2:51pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Reckless_young_driver says...

Great news. It be brilliant to see Shoebury flooded.
Great news. It be brilliant to see Shoebury flooded. Reckless_young_driver
  • Score: -17

2:59pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

emcee wrote:
It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid.

The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.
Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid. The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: -9

3:34pm Sun 5 Jan 14

LastIaugh,,. says...

I have some tarmac left over from an unexpected source, am happy to fill the hole (cash only please Guv)

Ta.
I have some tarmac left over from an unexpected source, am happy to fill the hole (cash only please Guv) Ta. LastIaugh,,.
  • Score: 7

3:43pm Sun 5 Jan 14

jolllyboy says...

I wonder how long it will take to get someone to admit they have responsibility for the maintenance and then for the work to be commissioned, meantime who would live in any house near that?
probably another outsourcing of responsibility has created this situation. Outsourcing = NMP = not my problem !
I wonder how long it will take to get someone to admit they have responsibility for the maintenance and then for the work to be commissioned, meantime who would live in any house near that? probably another outsourcing of responsibility has created this situation. Outsourcing = NMP = not my problem ! jolllyboy
  • Score: 4

4:08pm Sun 5 Jan 14

runwellian says...

It looks like piled up slabs, not a proper sea wall, just goes to show how some wallies underestimate the power of water!
It looks like piled up slabs, not a proper sea wall, just goes to show how some wallies underestimate the power of water! runwellian
  • Score: 4

4:32pm Sun 5 Jan 14

emcee says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
emcee wrote:
It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid.

The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.
Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha
Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid. The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha[/p][/quote]Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth. emcee
  • Score: 16

4:51pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

emcee wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
emcee wrote:
It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid.

The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.
Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha
Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.
Try opening your skull, and check your brain is still there, because I'm reading your comments, and thinking what TF, as you seem to think this has something to do with someone other than the M.o.D, they built it...DoH
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid. The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha[/p][/quote]Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.[/p][/quote]Try opening your skull, and check your brain is still there, because I'm reading your comments, and thinking what TF, as you seem to think this has something to do with someone other than the M.o.D, they built it...DoH Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: -10

5:09pm Sun 5 Jan 14

iknowbetter says...

emcee wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
emcee wrote:
It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid.

The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.
Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha
Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.
He can barely string a sentence together and you expect the village idiot to re read something.
The responsibility sits with the EA and not the MOD, They are just waiting for a few more weeks for the cheap labor to arrive from Bulgaria and Romania, who will inventively be classed as locals, great timing.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid. The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha[/p][/quote]Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.[/p][/quote]He can barely string a sentence together and you expect the village idiot to re read something. The responsibility sits with the EA and not the MOD, They are just waiting for a few more weeks for the cheap labor to arrive from Bulgaria and Romania, who will inventively be classed as locals, great timing. iknowbetter
  • Score: 6

5:13pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

iknowbetter wrote:
emcee wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
emcee wrote:
It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid.

The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.
Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha
Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.
He can barely string a sentence together and you expect the village idiot to re read something.
The responsibility sits with the EA and not the MOD, They are just waiting for a few more weeks for the cheap labor to arrive from Bulgaria and Romania, who will inventively be classed as locals, great timing.
Try using some grammar, perhaps you know better? then type better. PMSL..
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid. The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha[/p][/quote]Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.[/p][/quote]He can barely string a sentence together and you expect the village idiot to re read something. The responsibility sits with the EA and not the MOD, They are just waiting for a few more weeks for the cheap labor to arrive from Bulgaria and Romania, who will inventively be classed as locals, great timing.[/p][/quote]Try using some grammar, perhaps you know better? then type better. PMSL.. Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: -7

5:24pm Sun 5 Jan 14

iknowbetter says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
emcee wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
emcee wrote:
It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid.

The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.
Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha
Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.
He can barely string a sentence together and you expect the village idiot to re read something.
The responsibility sits with the EA and not the MOD, They are just waiting for a few more weeks for the cheap labor to arrive from Bulgaria and Romania, who will inventively be classed as locals, great timing.
Try using some grammar, perhaps you know better? then type better. PMSL..
That's rich coming from the Village/Forum idiot.
Besides you wouldn't understand intellect anyway so it will just be wasted..
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid. The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha[/p][/quote]Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.[/p][/quote]He can barely string a sentence together and you expect the village idiot to re read something. The responsibility sits with the EA and not the MOD, They are just waiting for a few more weeks for the cheap labor to arrive from Bulgaria and Romania, who will inventively be classed as locals, great timing.[/p][/quote]Try using some grammar, perhaps you know better? then type better. PMSL..[/p][/quote]That's rich coming from the Village/Forum idiot. Besides you wouldn't understand intellect anyway so it will just be wasted.. iknowbetter
  • Score: 3

5:25pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

Is this the same Shoebury that dosn't want a new sea wall around some shabby garden sheds I mean glamorous beech shanty huts?
Is this the same Shoebury that dosn't want a new sea wall around some shabby garden sheds I mean glamorous beech shanty huts? Living the La Vida Legra
  • Score: -3

5:28pm Sun 5 Jan 14

echoforum says...

Looks bad..need the same blokes who built the Warrior Cafe
Looks bad..need the same blokes who built the Warrior Cafe echoforum
  • Score: -2

5:33pm Sun 5 Jan 14

seasider270 says...

Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?
Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ? seasider270
  • Score: -7

5:42pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

iknowbetter wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
emcee wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
emcee wrote:
It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid.

The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.
Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha
Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.
He can barely string a sentence together and you expect the village idiot to re read something.
The responsibility sits with the EA and not the MOD, They are just waiting for a few more weeks for the cheap labor to arrive from Bulgaria and Romania, who will inventively be classed as locals, great timing.
Try using some grammar, perhaps you know better? then type better. PMSL..
That's rich coming from the Village/Forum idiot.
Besides you wouldn't understand intellect anyway so it will just be wasted..
Touchy Touchy
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: It is, indeed, surprising the sea defences are not the responsibility of the authority. Maintenance resposibility should never have been shirked and handed to a developer in the first place. Make them pay for the defences upkeep, by all means, but responsibility for maintenance should never have been handed over. Our sea defences are hugely important and should never be privatised, temporarily or otherwise, just because the council might save a few quid. The council should now repair these defences immediately and, not only bill the developer for this repair but fine them for allowing the sea wall to get to this stage, by not fulfilling their part of the agreement, and then take back maintenance responsibilities and make them pay for ongoing maintenance costs. Have the council the will to do this? I am not holding my breath.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it has nothing to do with any developer, this ea wall was built by the Government, when it was MOD land, ask them, ha[/p][/quote]Re read my comment. Where do I say the developer built it? However, I did mention the word "maintenance" a few times, though, if you care to open you eyes wider than your mouth.[/p][/quote]He can barely string a sentence together and you expect the village idiot to re read something. The responsibility sits with the EA and not the MOD, They are just waiting for a few more weeks for the cheap labor to arrive from Bulgaria and Romania, who will inventively be classed as locals, great timing.[/p][/quote]Try using some grammar, perhaps you know better? then type better. PMSL..[/p][/quote]That's rich coming from the Village/Forum idiot. Besides you wouldn't understand intellect anyway so it will just be wasted..[/p][/quote]Touchy Touchy Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: -6

6:14pm Sun 5 Jan 14

seasider270 says...

This week we have had two seafront stories - Western Esplanade which was closed off when it flooded, and now this bit of wall that looks more than a bit sick (glad I don't live the Garrison whilst it is in this state!). In the meantime SBC are adamant that they must improve the seawall - trouble is the bit they want to "improve" is neither Western Esplanade nor the bit around the Garrison!

I understand the gaping hole has been "filled" - i.e. the debris that fell out has been shoveled back in by a digger - no concrete or anything to hold it in the hole mind. Should last until the next strong wind comes through - so that will be - tomorrow!
This week we have had two seafront stories - Western Esplanade which was closed off when it flooded, and now this bit of wall that looks more than a bit sick (glad I don't live the Garrison whilst it is in this state!). In the meantime SBC are adamant that they must improve the seawall - trouble is the bit they want to "improve" is neither Western Esplanade nor the bit around the Garrison! I understand the gaping hole has been "filled" - i.e. the debris that fell out has been shoveled back in by a digger - no concrete or anything to hold it in the hole mind. Should last until the next strong wind comes through - so that will be - tomorrow! seasider270
  • Score: 2

8:01pm Sun 5 Jan 14

robb789 says...

Wouldn't call it a hole, and it's definitely not gaping.....and before anyone comments i'm not talking about Shoebury.
Wouldn't call it a hole, and it's definitely not gaping.....and before anyone comments i'm not talking about Shoebury. robb789
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Sun 5 Jan 14

heartbeat says...

The Echo definition of "Gaping Hole" is more than a little prone to exaggeration, looking at the photo!

It's like having some tiles blow off your roof and declaring that your roof has collapsed leaving a gaping hole. I don't think an Insurance Adjuster would agree to settle the claim on that basis!
The Echo definition of "Gaping Hole" is more than a little prone to exaggeration, looking at the photo! It's like having some tiles blow off your roof and declaring that your roof has collapsed leaving a gaping hole. I don't think an Insurance Adjuster would agree to settle the claim on that basis! heartbeat
  • Score: 3

11:27pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Kim Gandy says...

seasider270 wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?
Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish.

Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry.

Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know.

At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.
[quote][p][bold]seasider270[/bold] wrote: Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?[/p][/quote]Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish. Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry. Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know. At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours. Kim Gandy
  • Score: -16

11:37pm Sun 5 Jan 14

jayman says...

the MOD built and maintained excellent sea defences at relatively low cost. it is here in the story that I run out of positive material.

Glendale homes/garrison developments have systematically failed to invest in sea wall maintenance. The only works to this section of sea wall have been to pour a tar mix over older sections of wall (see picture above) in places of previous sea wall damage and have left other sections without any maintenance whatsoever.

the horseshoe estate can be described thusly.

a stolen legacy with a sea view with little or no regard to the legacy or the sea...
the MOD built and maintained excellent sea defences at relatively low cost. it is here in the story that I run out of positive material. Glendale homes/garrison developments have systematically failed to invest in sea wall maintenance. The only works to this section of sea wall have been to pour a tar mix over older sections of wall (see picture above) in places of previous sea wall damage and have left other sections without any maintenance whatsoever. the horseshoe estate can be described thusly. a stolen legacy with a sea view with little or no regard to the legacy or the sea... jayman
  • Score: -2

1:48am Mon 6 Jan 14

emcee says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
seasider270 wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?
Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish.

Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry.

Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know.

At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.
Erm... I think you mistake me for someone else. I have never, ever claimed I know you outside your activities on this website so please do point me to where I made "vicious diatribes" about you based on "hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish". I have never knowingly made any personal attacks on anyone on this site. In fact I actively avoid doing so. I only comment about the article published by the Echo, in agreement or disagreement to on other peoples comments about the article or in defence of personal attacks against me.
I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seasider270[/bold] wrote: Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?[/p][/quote]Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish. Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry. Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know. At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.[/p][/quote]Erm... I think you mistake me for someone else. I have never, ever claimed I know you outside your activities on this website so please do point me to where I made "vicious diatribes" about you based on "hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish". I have never knowingly made any personal attacks on anyone on this site. In fact I actively avoid doing so. I only comment about the article published by the Echo, in agreement or disagreement to on other peoples comments about the article or in defence of personal attacks against me. I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations. emcee
  • Score: 10

4:26am Mon 6 Jan 14

LastLaugh2 says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
seasider270 wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?
Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish.

Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry.

Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know.

At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.
Fact is Emsee, will be out doing the Tarmac along the wall, keeps it together...
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seasider270[/bold] wrote: Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?[/p][/quote]Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish. Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry. Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know. At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.[/p][/quote]Fact is Emsee, will be out doing the Tarmac along the wall, keeps it together... LastLaugh2
  • Score: 0

12:19am Tue 7 Jan 14

seasider270 says...

emcee wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
seasider270 wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?
Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish.

Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry.

Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know.

At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.
Erm... I think you mistake me for someone else. I have never, ever claimed I know you outside your activities on this website so please do point me to where I made "vicious diatribes" about you based on "hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish". I have never knowingly made any personal attacks on anyone on this site. In fact I actively avoid doing so. I only comment about the article published by the Echo, in agreement or disagreement to on other peoples comments about the article or in defence of personal attacks against me.
I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations.
Someone or other said "I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations."

Guys and girls - NO. Stop slagging each other off - it is dull - it is only of interest to the three of you - or is it four of you now - I forget.

In case you need reminding the original story was about a hole in a seawall - feel free to comment about holes in seawalls - specifically in Shoebury - in winter.

Over to you.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seasider270[/bold] wrote: Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?[/p][/quote]Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish. Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry. Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know. At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.[/p][/quote]Erm... I think you mistake me for someone else. I have never, ever claimed I know you outside your activities on this website so please do point me to where I made "vicious diatribes" about you based on "hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish". I have never knowingly made any personal attacks on anyone on this site. In fact I actively avoid doing so. I only comment about the article published by the Echo, in agreement or disagreement to on other peoples comments about the article or in defence of personal attacks against me. I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations.[/p][/quote]Someone or other said "I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations." Guys and girls - NO. Stop slagging each other off - it is dull - it is only of interest to the three of you - or is it four of you now - I forget. In case you need reminding the original story was about a hole in a seawall - feel free to comment about holes in seawalls - specifically in Shoebury - in winter. Over to you. seasider270
  • Score: -2

2:29am Tue 7 Jan 14

emcee says...

seasider270 wrote:
emcee wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
seasider270 wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?
Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish.

Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry.

Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know.

At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.
Erm... I think you mistake me for someone else. I have never, ever claimed I know you outside your activities on this website so please do point me to where I made "vicious diatribes" about you based on "hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish". I have never knowingly made any personal attacks on anyone on this site. In fact I actively avoid doing so. I only comment about the article published by the Echo, in agreement or disagreement to on other peoples comments about the article or in defence of personal attacks against me.
I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations.
Someone or other said "I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations."

Guys and girls - NO. Stop slagging each other off - it is dull - it is only of interest to the three of you - or is it four of you now - I forget.

In case you need reminding the original story was about a hole in a seawall - feel free to comment about holes in seawalls - specifically in Shoebury - in winter.

Over to you.
With all due respect, nobody is slagging anyone off. Well, you will not find me doing the slagging, anyway. However, Ms Gandy seems to have a bit of a bee in her bonnet about me for some reason or another and I merely ask her to justify her accusations. I still await her reply.
[quote][p][bold]seasider270[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seasider270[/bold] wrote: Nowthatsworthknowing iknowbetter & emcee - you guys need to get out more ! Someone has explained that the whole world can read your comments ?[/p][/quote]Absolutely... emcee in particular thinks he knows me.. enough to write vicious diatribes about me on here based on hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish. Only thick people believe cr@p like that - enough to regurgitate it and spread it around. Evil people keep repeating it to all and sundry. Too many curtain twitchers on here. People who are so obsessed with the lives of others and what they THINK they know. At least my comments are usually based on truth and FACT and not a seething hatred of somebody I don't know just because a minority of nutters like spreading rumours.[/p][/quote]Erm... I think you mistake me for someone else. I have never, ever claimed I know you outside your activities on this website so please do point me to where I made "vicious diatribes" about you based on "hearsay, conjecture, Photoshopped and hacked rubbish". I have never knowingly made any personal attacks on anyone on this site. In fact I actively avoid doing so. I only comment about the article published by the Echo, in agreement or disagreement to on other peoples comments about the article or in defence of personal attacks against me. I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations.[/p][/quote]Someone or other said "I await, with interest, your reply pointing me to proof backing up your accusations." Guys and girls - NO. Stop slagging each other off - it is dull - it is only of interest to the three of you - or is it four of you now - I forget. In case you need reminding the original story was about a hole in a seawall - feel free to comment about holes in seawalls - specifically in Shoebury - in winter. Over to you.[/p][/quote]With all due respect, nobody is slagging anyone off. Well, you will not find me doing the slagging, anyway. However, Ms Gandy seems to have a bit of a bee in her bonnet about me for some reason or another and I merely ask her to justify her accusations. I still await her reply. emcee
  • Score: 4

7:59am Tue 7 Jan 14

LastIaugh,,. says...

Emcee says:

With all due respect, nobody is slagging anyone off. Well, you will not find me doing the slagging, anyway. However, Ms Gandy seems to have a bit of a bee in her bonnet about me for some reason or another and I merely ask her to justify her accusations. I still await her reply.

Don't hold your breath. 'Her majesty' only comments on here, she doesn't read any replies. How she forms an opinion for an argument is anyone's business.

A bit like me rally.

Now then, remember, I'm Sparticus !!
Emcee says: With all due respect, nobody is slagging anyone off. Well, you will not find me doing the slagging, anyway. However, Ms Gandy seems to have a bit of a bee in her bonnet about me for some reason or another and I merely ask her to justify her accusations. I still await her reply. Don't hold your breath. 'Her majesty' only comments on here, she doesn't read any replies. How she forms an opinion for an argument is anyone's business. A bit like me rally. Now then, remember, I'm Sparticus !! LastIaugh,,.
  • 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