Row over plans for big seafront lagoon

Southend Standard: Three Shells Beach in Southend Three Shells Beach in Southend

SAILORS, sea cadets and naturalists have raised concerns about plans for an artificial lagoon almost the size of a football pitch on Southend seafront.

Southend Council has received 33 letters of objection to the tree-lined pool, which the owners of Adventure Island want to build at Three Shells Beach.

Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.

The Alexandra Yacht Club, whose members have flooded the council with objections, fears it would have to close after 140 years as the pool and a new groyne would block the jetty used by its 200-odd members.

Commodore Andy Solkhon said: “It will kill us. We won’t be able to survive.

“It’s putting people off joining, knowing that if the wall goes up they have wasted their time.”

The 60 children, many from under-privileged backgrounds, who are members of Southend Sea Cadets also use the yacht club’s jetty at the beach, which would be blocked by the lagoon.

Chairman Alan Friedrich said: “If this proposal goes ahead we will not be able to use the jetty and slipway or the beach.

“Our children will not have the ability to bring their dinghys against the slipway with the lagoon, but especially the groyne. It will be far too dangerous.

“We also sometimes land on the beach as this is very easy for the inexperienced children. We also use the beach to give instruction to the children.

“If this goes ahead it will stop our sailing activities.”

Natural England said the lagoon would harm wildlife, during and after its construction.

Gordon Wyatt, lead advisor of the land use operations team, said: “The use of heavy construction plant on the foreshore could potentially result in disturbance to wildlife.”

Seafront traders, councillors and tourism officials have backed the lagoon plan, put forward by the Stockvale Group, which owns a number of seafront attractions, including Adventure Island, the Sealife Adventure, restaurant Sands and the Three Shells Cafe.

A 120m wall up to three metres above sea level would be built using sheet piles, rock-filled baskets and boulders out on the foreshore.

Palm trees would be planted on the pavement around the Three Shells Cafe and a new toilet block would be built at the western end of the beach, under the plans.

The Stockvale Group declined to comment.

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:37am Tue 18 Feb 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

"The 60 children, many from under-privileged backgrounds, who are members of Southend Sea Cadets also use the yacht club’s jetty at the beach, which would be blocked by the lagoon".


ohhh yeah play that sympathy card why don't you, what differance does it make if they are under privileged kids or not.
"The 60 children, many from under-privileged backgrounds, who are members of Southend Sea Cadets also use the yacht club’s jetty at the beach, which would be blocked by the lagoon". ohhh yeah play that sympathy card why don't you, what differance does it make if they are under privileged kids or not. DogsMessInLeigh

9:37am Tue 18 Feb 14

Nebs says...

Here's a better business plan. Build the lagoon, wait a year or two, fill it in with rocks and concrete, then extend adventure island.
Here's a better business plan. Build the lagoon, wait a year or two, fill it in with rocks and concrete, then extend adventure island. Nebs

9:40am Tue 18 Feb 14

andyb77 says...

If the yacht club has 200 odd members, how many normal members do they have??
If the yacht club has 200 odd members, how many normal members do they have?? andyb77

9:44am Tue 18 Feb 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

andyb77 wrote:
If the yacht club has 200 odd members, how many normal members do they have??
just the 200 odd ones use the jetty it says...So the others must go elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]andyb77[/bold] wrote: If the yacht club has 200 odd members, how many normal members do they have??[/p][/quote]just the 200 odd ones use the jetty it says...So the others must go elsewhere. DogsMessInLeigh

10:38am Tue 18 Feb 14

pembury53 says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
"The 60 children, many from under-privileged backgrounds, who are members of Southend Sea Cadets also use the yacht club’s jetty at the beach, which would be blocked by the lagoon". ohhh yeah play that sympathy card why don't you, what differance does it make if they are under privileged kids or not.
Quite right, it should make no difference, and there should be no need for any cards to be played, sympathy or otherwise..... the use of the jetty is an established activity, and cost a lot of money to set up and not an inconsiderable amount to maintain and has been there for years...... the idea that someone should be able to simply drive a truck through it, for what is, ultimately a business opportunity, is completely wrong whichever way you look at it.....
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: "The 60 children, many from under-privileged backgrounds, who are members of Southend Sea Cadets also use the yacht club’s jetty at the beach, which would be blocked by the lagoon". ohhh yeah play that sympathy card why don't you, what differance does it make if they are under privileged kids or not.[/p][/quote]Quite right, it should make no difference, and there should be no need for any cards to be played, sympathy or otherwise..... the use of the jetty is an established activity, and cost a lot of money to set up and not an inconsiderable amount to maintain and has been there for years...... the idea that someone should be able to simply drive a truck through it, for what is, ultimately a business opportunity, is completely wrong whichever way you look at it..... pembury53

10:50am Tue 18 Feb 14

stopmoaning1 says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
"The 60 children, many from under-privileged backgrounds, who are members of Southend Sea Cadets also use the yacht club’s jetty at the beach, which would be blocked by the lagoon".


ohhh yeah play that sympathy card why don't you, what differance does it make if they are under privileged kids or not.
It's a good point but poorly made.
We regularly hear about kids having nothing to do, out on the streets causing trouble. Sea Cadets (along with the Army and Air Cadets, scout groups etc..) provide youngsters with great life experiences, sense of belonging and achievement. (I'm sure those from under privileged backgrounds probably benefit more than others)
My husband was a Sea Cadet before joining the Royal Navy and he says it was a great life experience.
Let's not take that away from our local youth.
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: "The 60 children, many from under-privileged backgrounds, who are members of Southend Sea Cadets also use the yacht club’s jetty at the beach, which would be blocked by the lagoon". ohhh yeah play that sympathy card why don't you, what differance does it make if they are under privileged kids or not.[/p][/quote]It's a good point but poorly made. We regularly hear about kids having nothing to do, out on the streets causing trouble. Sea Cadets (along with the Army and Air Cadets, scout groups etc..) provide youngsters with great life experiences, sense of belonging and achievement. (I'm sure those from under privileged backgrounds probably benefit more than others) My husband was a Sea Cadet before joining the Royal Navy and he says it was a great life experience. Let's not take that away from our local youth. stopmoaning1

11:23am Tue 18 Feb 14

jantone says...

PLEASE, PLEASE, Southend Council, don't refuse planning permission for this brilliant idea, which would bring hundreds of people to the seafront!!
They are still awaiting for the new scaled down plans for the proposed "floating" restaurant on the front which would be a travesty if they refused that one!! Allow Phillip Miller to build the Lagoon, if he could not afford it he would not do it!! As simple as that!!
PLEASE, PLEASE, Southend Council, don't refuse planning permission for this brilliant idea, which would bring hundreds of people to the seafront!! They are still awaiting for the new scaled down plans for the proposed "floating" restaurant on the front which would be a travesty if they refused that one!! Allow Phillip Miller to build the Lagoon, if he could not afford it he would not do it!! As simple as that!! jantone

11:31am Tue 18 Feb 14

Broadwaywatch says...

Who will the Lagoon serve?
Who will the Lagoon serve? Broadwaywatch

11:40am Tue 18 Feb 14

cagedtiger says...

why not just grant permission and make building a replacement jetty a requirement as part of the permission!?
why not just grant permission and make building a replacement jetty a requirement as part of the permission!? cagedtiger

11:43am Tue 18 Feb 14

Granny Peddle says...

The lagoon won't make the Stockvale Group much money, other than possible heightened trade at the Three Shells. What it will do, though, is provide a body of water that remains throughout the day when the tide is out and a new block of public loos which is needed since the old ones closed when Southend Radio was built, giving beachgoers a better experience and making a better day out for the thousands of tourists that visit in summer, and locals too. I'm looking forward to taking my grandkids down to enjoy the lagoon. Perhaps the cost of moving the jetty to the other end of the yacht club's platform could be absorbed into the construction?
The lagoon won't make the Stockvale Group much money, other than possible heightened trade at the Three Shells. What it will do, though, is provide a body of water that remains throughout the day when the tide is out and a new block of public loos which is needed since the old ones closed when Southend Radio was built, giving beachgoers a better experience and making a better day out for the thousands of tourists that visit in summer, and locals too. I'm looking forward to taking my grandkids down to enjoy the lagoon. Perhaps the cost of moving the jetty to the other end of the yacht club's platform could be absorbed into the construction? Granny Peddle

11:43am Tue 18 Feb 14

You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
Who will the Lagoon serve?
The Lagooners...
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: Who will the Lagoon serve?[/p][/quote]The Lagooners... You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat

12:15pm Tue 18 Feb 14

dhd says...

Granny Peddle wrote:
The lagoon won't make the Stockvale Group much money, other than possible heightened trade at the Three Shells. What it will do, though, is provide a body of water that remains throughout the day when the tide is out and a new block of public loos which is needed since the old ones closed when Southend Radio was built, giving beachgoers a better experience and making a better day out for the thousands of tourists that visit in summer, and locals too. I'm looking forward to taking my grandkids down to enjoy the lagoon. Perhaps the cost of moving the jetty to the other end of the yacht club's platform could be absorbed into the construction?
Everybody seems to missing the point that it is going to damage the environment, that is the most important thing.
[quote][p][bold]Granny Peddle[/bold] wrote: The lagoon won't make the Stockvale Group much money, other than possible heightened trade at the Three Shells. What it will do, though, is provide a body of water that remains throughout the day when the tide is out and a new block of public loos which is needed since the old ones closed when Southend Radio was built, giving beachgoers a better experience and making a better day out for the thousands of tourists that visit in summer, and locals too. I'm looking forward to taking my grandkids down to enjoy the lagoon. Perhaps the cost of moving the jetty to the other end of the yacht club's platform could be absorbed into the construction?[/p][/quote]Everybody seems to missing the point that it is going to damage the environment, that is the most important thing. dhd

12:15pm Tue 18 Feb 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
Who will the Lagoon serve?
Phillip Miller.
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: Who will the Lagoon serve?[/p][/quote]Phillip Miller. stopmoaning1

12:40pm Tue 18 Feb 14

live in westcliff says...

I am all for the lagoon being built, it is just what is needed when the tide is out. The proposed trees lining the trees sound nice too. I think everything Philip Miller has done for the Seafront is positive.

I think back to how it looked 20 years ago and there is a massive improvement. What we have to remember is people come to Southend in the summer to have entertainment, go swimming and just have a fun day out. There is plenty of room further on where people can go for a nice walk. Also Mr Miller is creating an environment where people will choose to stay longer into the evening. I heard a new restaurant is going to be opening on Pier Hill soon and feel that the improvements on the seafront are huge over the past 10 years. Keep up the good work and Southend Council please allow this to go ahead. Also I liked the idea of the floating restaurant and was disappointed that didn't get approval. Unfortunately in life you get people who complain about everything what they fail to realise is investment is good it shows a positive and confident attitude to the town and attracts visitors and an upbeat feeling. The proposed floating restaurant looked amazing and look at what it was replacing ...an old tea shack.
I am all for the lagoon being built, it is just what is needed when the tide is out. The proposed trees lining the trees sound nice too. I think everything Philip Miller has done for the Seafront is positive. I think back to how it looked 20 years ago and there is a massive improvement. What we have to remember is people come to Southend in the summer to have entertainment, go swimming and just have a fun day out. There is plenty of room further on where people can go for a nice walk. Also Mr Miller is creating an environment where people will choose to stay longer into the evening. I heard a new restaurant is going to be opening on Pier Hill soon and feel that the improvements on the seafront are huge over the past 10 years. Keep up the good work and Southend Council please allow this to go ahead. Also I liked the idea of the floating restaurant and was disappointed that didn't get approval. Unfortunately in life you get people who complain about everything what they fail to realise is investment is good it shows a positive and confident attitude to the town and attracts visitors and an upbeat feeling. The proposed floating restaurant looked amazing and look at what it was replacing ...an old tea shack. live in westcliff

12:42pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Kim Gandy says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
andyb77 wrote:
If the yacht club has 200 odd members, how many normal members do they have??
just the 200 odd ones use the jetty it says...So the others must go elsewhere.
hahahahahaha thanks for that
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyb77[/bold] wrote: If the yacht club has 200 odd members, how many normal members do they have??[/p][/quote]just the 200 odd ones use the jetty it says...So the others must go elsewhere.[/p][/quote]hahahahahaha thanks for that Kim Gandy

12:43pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Kim Gandy says...

Wildlife, what wildlife? You mean the drunks and the drug pushers?
Wildlife, what wildlife? You mean the drunks and the drug pushers? Kim Gandy

12:53pm Tue 18 Feb 14

pembury53 says...

jantone wrote:
PLEASE, PLEASE, Southend Council, don't refuse planning permission for this brilliant idea, which would bring hundreds of people to the seafront!! They are still awaiting for the new scaled down plans for the proposed "floating" restaurant on the front which would be a travesty if they refused that one!! Allow Phillip Miller to build the Lagoon, if he could not afford it he would not do it!! As simple as that!!
"bring hundreds of people to the seafront" that has to be the most ridiculous thing i've heard in ages...... if the sun shines for so much as 5 minutes these days the entire seafront is packed all the way down into leigh, even in winter, like sunday just past for example..... the last thing most people living in the area want is more b****y day trippers !
[quote][p][bold]jantone[/bold] wrote: PLEASE, PLEASE, Southend Council, don't refuse planning permission for this brilliant idea, which would bring hundreds of people to the seafront!! They are still awaiting for the new scaled down plans for the proposed "floating" restaurant on the front which would be a travesty if they refused that one!! Allow Phillip Miller to build the Lagoon, if he could not afford it he would not do it!! As simple as that!![/p][/quote]"bring hundreds of people to the seafront" that has to be the most ridiculous thing i've heard in ages...... if the sun shines for so much as 5 minutes these days the entire seafront is packed all the way down into leigh, even in winter, like sunday just past for example..... the last thing most people living in the area want is more b****y day trippers ! pembury53

1:20pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Hock89 says...

dhd wrote:
Granny Peddle wrote: The lagoon won't make the Stockvale Group much money, other than possible heightened trade at the Three Shells. What it will do, though, is provide a body of water that remains throughout the day when the tide is out and a new block of public loos which is needed since the old ones closed when Southend Radio was built, giving beachgoers a better experience and making a better day out for the thousands of tourists that visit in summer, and locals too. I'm looking forward to taking my grandkids down to enjoy the lagoon. Perhaps the cost of moving the jetty to the other end of the yacht club's platform could be absorbed into the construction?
Everybody seems to missing the point that it is going to damage the environment, that is the most important thing.
environment?
[quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Granny Peddle[/bold] wrote: The lagoon won't make the Stockvale Group much money, other than possible heightened trade at the Three Shells. What it will do, though, is provide a body of water that remains throughout the day when the tide is out and a new block of public loos which is needed since the old ones closed when Southend Radio was built, giving beachgoers a better experience and making a better day out for the thousands of tourists that visit in summer, and locals too. I'm looking forward to taking my grandkids down to enjoy the lagoon. Perhaps the cost of moving the jetty to the other end of the yacht club's platform could be absorbed into the construction?[/p][/quote]Everybody seems to missing the point that it is going to damage the environment, that is the most important thing.[/p][/quote]environment? Hock89

1:25pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Cockle says...

Simple answer would be to make it a condition of permission being granted is that the developer should have to provide the yacht club with replacement facilities. These facilities should be provided, and be agreed as acceptable to the yacht club, BEFORE any develop work on the lagoon is permitted to start. If the developer finds that makes it unviable then so be it, developers should not be allowed to just ride roughshod over the existing incumbents.
Obviously this is assuming that the environmental impact can be overcome. Don't forget that the vast majority of creatures living in the shoreline ecosystem are tiny but nevertheless vital to the health of the river.....
Simple answer would be to make it a condition of permission being granted is that the developer should have to provide the yacht club with replacement facilities. These facilities should be provided, and be agreed as acceptable to the yacht club, BEFORE any develop work on the lagoon is permitted to start. If the developer finds that makes it unviable then so be it, developers should not be allowed to just ride roughshod over the existing incumbents. Obviously this is assuming that the environmental impact can be overcome. Don't forget that the vast majority of creatures living in the shoreline ecosystem are tiny but nevertheless vital to the health of the river..... Cockle

1:26pm Tue 18 Feb 14

dhd says...

Hock89 wrote:
dhd wrote:
Granny Peddle wrote: The lagoon won't make the Stockvale Group much money, other than possible heightened trade at the Three Shells. What it will do, though, is provide a body of water that remains throughout the day when the tide is out and a new block of public loos which is needed since the old ones closed when Southend Radio was built, giving beachgoers a better experience and making a better day out for the thousands of tourists that visit in summer, and locals too. I'm looking forward to taking my grandkids down to enjoy the lagoon. Perhaps the cost of moving the jetty to the other end of the yacht club's platform could be absorbed into the construction?
Everybody seems to missing the point that it is going to damage the environment, that is the most important thing.
environment?
Yes
'Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.'
[quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Granny Peddle[/bold] wrote: The lagoon won't make the Stockvale Group much money, other than possible heightened trade at the Three Shells. What it will do, though, is provide a body of water that remains throughout the day when the tide is out and a new block of public loos which is needed since the old ones closed when Southend Radio was built, giving beachgoers a better experience and making a better day out for the thousands of tourists that visit in summer, and locals too. I'm looking forward to taking my grandkids down to enjoy the lagoon. Perhaps the cost of moving the jetty to the other end of the yacht club's platform could be absorbed into the construction?[/p][/quote]Everybody seems to missing the point that it is going to damage the environment, that is the most important thing.[/p][/quote]environment?[/p][/quote]Yes 'Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.' dhd

1:33pm Tue 18 Feb 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

pembury53 wrote:
jantone wrote:
PLEASE, PLEASE, Southend Council, don't refuse planning permission for this brilliant idea, which would bring hundreds of people to the seafront!! They are still awaiting for the new scaled down plans for the proposed "floating" restaurant on the front which would be a travesty if they refused that one!! Allow Phillip Miller to build the Lagoon, if he could not afford it he would not do it!! As simple as that!!
"bring hundreds of people to the seafront" that has to be the most ridiculous thing i've heard in ages...... if the sun shines for so much as 5 minutes these days the entire seafront is packed all the way down into leigh, even in winter, like sunday just past for example..... the last thing most people living in the area want is more b****y day trippers !
Yes 100% correct....a sunny sunday and people go there anyway, we know about this being local people for so long.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jantone[/bold] wrote: PLEASE, PLEASE, Southend Council, don't refuse planning permission for this brilliant idea, which would bring hundreds of people to the seafront!! They are still awaiting for the new scaled down plans for the proposed "floating" restaurant on the front which would be a travesty if they refused that one!! Allow Phillip Miller to build the Lagoon, if he could not afford it he would not do it!! As simple as that!![/p][/quote]"bring hundreds of people to the seafront" that has to be the most ridiculous thing i've heard in ages...... if the sun shines for so much as 5 minutes these days the entire seafront is packed all the way down into leigh, even in winter, like sunday just past for example..... the last thing most people living in the area want is more b****y day trippers ![/p][/quote]Yes 100% correct....a sunny sunday and people go there anyway, we know about this being local people for so long. DogsMessInLeigh

1:34pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Hock89 says...

mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"
mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest" Hock89

1:44pm Tue 18 Feb 14

dhd says...

Hock89 wrote:
mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"
Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.
[quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"[/p][/quote]Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof. dhd

1:53pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Hock89 says...

dhd wrote:
Hock89 wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"
Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.
Not trying to be clever, just frustrating when people start moaning about the environment etc... when obviously dont actually know anything about it, just quote paragraphs from the article and claim you know about it. I find it hard to believe that the "Environment" will be damaged, what's there to be damaged? besides, if this forshore is a SSSI then im gathering so was the part which adventure island has flattened....and yet no one is moaning about that.
[quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"[/p][/quote]Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.[/p][/quote]Not trying to be clever, just frustrating when people start moaning about the environment etc... when obviously dont actually know anything about it, just quote paragraphs from the article and claim you know about it. I find it hard to believe that the "Environment" will be damaged, what's there to be damaged? besides, if this forshore is a SSSI then im gathering so was the part which adventure island has flattened....and yet no one is moaning about that. Hock89

2:06pm Tue 18 Feb 14

stopmoaning1 says...

live in westcliff wrote:
I am all for the lagoon being built, it is just what is needed when the tide is out. The proposed trees lining the trees sound nice too. I think everything Philip Miller has done for the Seafront is positive.

I think back to how it looked 20 years ago and there is a massive improvement. What we have to remember is people come to Southend in the summer to have entertainment, go swimming and just have a fun day out. There is plenty of room further on where people can go for a nice walk. Also Mr Miller is creating an environment where people will choose to stay longer into the evening. I heard a new restaurant is going to be opening on Pier Hill soon and feel that the improvements on the seafront are huge over the past 10 years. Keep up the good work and Southend Council please allow this to go ahead. Also I liked the idea of the floating restaurant and was disappointed that didn't get approval. Unfortunately in life you get people who complain about everything what they fail to realise is investment is good it shows a positive and confident attitude to the town and attracts visitors and an upbeat feeling. The proposed floating restaurant looked amazing and look at what it was replacing ...an old tea shack.
Thanks Phil, I didn't know you lived in Westcliff
[quote][p][bold]live in westcliff[/bold] wrote: I am all for the lagoon being built, it is just what is needed when the tide is out. The proposed trees lining the trees sound nice too. I think everything Philip Miller has done for the Seafront is positive. I think back to how it looked 20 years ago and there is a massive improvement. What we have to remember is people come to Southend in the summer to have entertainment, go swimming and just have a fun day out. There is plenty of room further on where people can go for a nice walk. Also Mr Miller is creating an environment where people will choose to stay longer into the evening. I heard a new restaurant is going to be opening on Pier Hill soon and feel that the improvements on the seafront are huge over the past 10 years. Keep up the good work and Southend Council please allow this to go ahead. Also I liked the idea of the floating restaurant and was disappointed that didn't get approval. Unfortunately in life you get people who complain about everything what they fail to realise is investment is good it shows a positive and confident attitude to the town and attracts visitors and an upbeat feeling. The proposed floating restaurant looked amazing and look at what it was replacing ...an old tea shack.[/p][/quote]Thanks Phil, I didn't know you lived in Westcliff stopmoaning1

2:07pm Tue 18 Feb 14

maxell says...

We could be missing a point here the lagoon is a for profit venture, it is more likly to be used to stop the wash comming from the huge vessels carring 18,000 containers on the way to dp world. If the rest of the beach is affected by wash it may just stop people visiting that section of beach, however if you have a protected area it could entice people to use this section of beach more.
We could be missing a point here the lagoon is a for profit venture, it is more likly to be used to stop the wash comming from the huge vessels carring 18,000 containers on the way to dp world. If the rest of the beach is affected by wash it may just stop people visiting that section of beach, however if you have a protected area it could entice people to use this section of beach more. maxell

2:33pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Joe Clark says...

Cockle wrote:
Simple answer would be to make it a condition of permission being granted is that the developer should have to provide the yacht club with replacement facilities. These facilities should be provided, and be agreed as acceptable to the yacht club, BEFORE any develop work on the lagoon is permitted to start. If the developer finds that makes it unviable then so be it, developers should not be allowed to just ride roughshod over the existing incumbents.
Obviously this is assuming that the environmental impact can be overcome. Don't forget that the vast majority of creatures living in the shoreline ecosystem are tiny but nevertheless vital to the health of the river.....
I was going to say the same before any work on the lagoon can start a replacement slipway MUST be built at zero cost to the yacht club, also the beach the other side of the club must be replenished again at no cost to the club, once these two are provided then work can start on the lagoon, this way he club can continue and the seafront gets a new facility.
[quote][p][bold]Cockle[/bold] wrote: Simple answer would be to make it a condition of permission being granted is that the developer should have to provide the yacht club with replacement facilities. These facilities should be provided, and be agreed as acceptable to the yacht club, BEFORE any develop work on the lagoon is permitted to start. If the developer finds that makes it unviable then so be it, developers should not be allowed to just ride roughshod over the existing incumbents. Obviously this is assuming that the environmental impact can be overcome. Don't forget that the vast majority of creatures living in the shoreline ecosystem are tiny but nevertheless vital to the health of the river.....[/p][/quote]I was going to say the same before any work on the lagoon can start a replacement slipway MUST be built at zero cost to the yacht club, also the beach the other side of the club must be replenished again at no cost to the club, once these two are provided then work can start on the lagoon, this way he club can continue and the seafront gets a new facility. Joe Clark

2:33pm Tue 18 Feb 14

dhd says...

Hock89 wrote:
dhd wrote:
Hock89 wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"
Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.
Not trying to be clever, just frustrating when people start moaning about the environment etc... when obviously dont actually know anything about it, just quote paragraphs from the article and claim you know about it. I find it hard to believe that the "Environment" will be damaged, what's there to be damaged? besides, if this forshore is a SSSI then im gathering so was the part which adventure island has flattened....and yet no one is moaning about that.
What do you mean I 'obviously' don't know anything about it? Are you for real? Have you any idea what lives in the sea and the implications of this development? Just because not everything Is visible with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there. That's why it's an SSSI. Do some homework.
[quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"[/p][/quote]Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.[/p][/quote]Not trying to be clever, just frustrating when people start moaning about the environment etc... when obviously dont actually know anything about it, just quote paragraphs from the article and claim you know about it. I find it hard to believe that the "Environment" will be damaged, what's there to be damaged? besides, if this forshore is a SSSI then im gathering so was the part which adventure island has flattened....and yet no one is moaning about that.[/p][/quote]What do you mean I 'obviously' don't know anything about it? Are you for real? Have you any idea what lives in the sea and the implications of this development? Just because not everything Is visible with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there. That's why it's an SSSI. Do some homework. dhd

3:08pm Tue 18 Feb 14

jolllyboy says...

Palm trees ? look at those we have - stupid. Remember the rocks thrown into the children's pool that had been there years. Should never have got rid of the outdoor swimming pool. No that would attract.
Palm trees ? look at those we have - stupid. Remember the rocks thrown into the children's pool that had been there years. Should never have got rid of the outdoor swimming pool. No that would attract. jolllyboy

3:16pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Hock89 says...

dhd wrote:
Hock89 wrote:
dhd wrote:
Hock89 wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"
Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.
Not trying to be clever, just frustrating when people start moaning about the environment etc... when obviously dont actually know anything about it, just quote paragraphs from the article and claim you know about it. I find it hard to believe that the "Environment" will be damaged, what's there to be damaged? besides, if this forshore is a SSSI then im gathering so was the part which adventure island has flattened....and yet no one is moaning about that.
What do you mean I 'obviously' don't know anything about it? Are you for real? Have you any idea what lives in the sea and the implications of this development? Just because not everything Is visible with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there. That's why it's an SSSI. Do some homework.
yes....i am for real. Do some homework?? haha...didn't you just quote "Specific" instead of "special"??? no idon't know what lives under the sea....please tell me? and please tell me what implications this development will have?
[quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"[/p][/quote]Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.[/p][/quote]Not trying to be clever, just frustrating when people start moaning about the environment etc... when obviously dont actually know anything about it, just quote paragraphs from the article and claim you know about it. I find it hard to believe that the "Environment" will be damaged, what's there to be damaged? besides, if this forshore is a SSSI then im gathering so was the part which adventure island has flattened....and yet no one is moaning about that.[/p][/quote]What do you mean I 'obviously' don't know anything about it? Are you for real? Have you any idea what lives in the sea and the implications of this development? Just because not everything Is visible with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there. That's why it's an SSSI. Do some homework.[/p][/quote]yes....i am for real. Do some homework?? haha...didn't you just quote "Specific" instead of "special"??? no idon't know what lives under the sea....please tell me? and please tell me what implications this development will have? Hock89

4:11pm Tue 18 Feb 14

the25man says...

The Stockvale Group has brought a lot of life to the sea front and has kept Southend a place to visit. A lagoon would help the front and be more in keeping with a sea front. The yacht Club with their unsjghtly wooden thing to store boats on does not help with the fore shore and as its been there sometime so any wild life it disturbed when first put up have adapted to it the same as they would with the lagoon.
The Stockvale Group has brought a lot of life to the sea front and has kept Southend a place to visit. A lagoon would help the front and be more in keeping with a sea front. The yacht Club with their unsjghtly wooden thing to store boats on does not help with the fore shore and as its been there sometime so any wild life it disturbed when first put up have adapted to it the same as they would with the lagoon. the25man

4:13pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Joe Clark says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Palm trees ? look at those we have - stupid. Remember the rocks thrown into the children's pool that had been there years. Should never have got rid of the outdoor swimming pool. No that would attract.
That was 1969 this is 2014 live in the present not in the past, the thing was past it's prime, it leaked like a sieve and all indications were that indoor pools were the way to go, yes yes some places kept their lido's but many have since fallen in to disrepair and have been closed for many years.

If you want to live in the past then go the whole hog and do it but don't just pick and choose what parts to live in, forget about all the advances in health care that were not available in 1969, big TV's, DVD's Sky, CableTV, home computers, Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox are all out oh yes and the internet...
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Palm trees ? look at those we have - stupid. Remember the rocks thrown into the children's pool that had been there years. Should never have got rid of the outdoor swimming pool. No that would attract.[/p][/quote]That was 1969 this is 2014 live in the present not in the past, the thing was past it's prime, it leaked like a sieve and all indications were that indoor pools were the way to go, yes yes some places kept their lido's but many have since fallen in to disrepair and have been closed for many years. If you want to live in the past then go the whole hog and do it but don't just pick and choose what parts to live in, forget about all the advances in health care that were not available in 1969, big TV's, DVD's Sky, CableTV, home computers, Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox are all out oh yes and the internet... Joe Clark

4:31pm Tue 18 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

'Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.'

What, a grotty, muddy beach full of builders' rubble, coke tins, fag ends, crisp packets and dog ****?

It's the Thames Estuary not the Cote D'Azure.
'Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.' What, a grotty, muddy beach full of builders' rubble, coke tins, fag ends, crisp packets and dog ****? It's the Thames Estuary not the Cote D'Azure. RochfordRob

5:11pm Tue 18 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Joe Clark wrote:
Cockle wrote:
Simple answer would be to make it a condition of permission being granted is that the developer should have to provide the yacht club with replacement facilities. These facilities should be provided, and be agreed as acceptable to the yacht club, BEFORE any develop work on the lagoon is permitted to start. If the developer finds that makes it unviable then so be it, developers should not be allowed to just ride roughshod over the existing incumbents.
Obviously this is assuming that the environmental impact can be overcome. Don't forget that the vast majority of creatures living in the shoreline ecosystem are tiny but nevertheless vital to the health of the river.....
I was going to say the same before any work on the lagoon can start a replacement slipway MUST be built at zero cost to the yacht club, also the beach the other side of the club must be replenished again at no cost to the club, once these two are provided then work can start on the lagoon, this way he club can continue and the seafront gets a new facility.
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ?
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cockle[/bold] wrote: Simple answer would be to make it a condition of permission being granted is that the developer should have to provide the yacht club with replacement facilities. These facilities should be provided, and be agreed as acceptable to the yacht club, BEFORE any develop work on the lagoon is permitted to start. If the developer finds that makes it unviable then so be it, developers should not be allowed to just ride roughshod over the existing incumbents. Obviously this is assuming that the environmental impact can be overcome. Don't forget that the vast majority of creatures living in the shoreline ecosystem are tiny but nevertheless vital to the health of the river.....[/p][/quote]I was going to say the same before any work on the lagoon can start a replacement slipway MUST be built at zero cost to the yacht club, also the beach the other side of the club must be replenished again at no cost to the club, once these two are provided then work can start on the lagoon, this way he club can continue and the seafront gets a new facility.[/p][/quote]Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ? ThisYear

5:35pm Tue 18 Feb 14

mickytaker says...

Here we go again, should we, or should we not build on the sea front,my answer emphatically NO.
Why should we alter and reconstruct the beach, whats in it for us, and then ask ,whats in it for the developers,does anyone realy believe that they are doing it for the benefit of the local residents or even the day trippers.or perhaps to enhance the area, NO, one reason only, Profit.
Go down to the beach area as soon as we get a glimmer of sunshine, and the place is packed, from the Pier to Chalkwell,so why would anyone argue jantone it will bring in hundreds more people, perhaps jantone you should do another one of your surveys??.
Here we go again, should we, or should we not build on the sea front,my answer emphatically NO. Why should we alter and reconstruct the beach, whats in it for us, and then ask ,whats in it for the developers,does anyone realy believe that they are doing it for the benefit of the local residents or even the day trippers.or perhaps to enhance the area, NO, one reason only, Profit. Go down to the beach area as soon as we get a glimmer of sunshine, and the place is packed, from the Pier to Chalkwell,so why would anyone argue jantone it will bring in hundreds more people, perhaps jantone you should do another one of your surveys??. mickytaker

5:38pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Keptquiettillnow says...

Slowly the one asset left to SBC is being sold off.
Slowly the one asset left to SBC is being sold off. Keptquiettillnow

6:11pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

Only 200 people us it! Get shot of it
Only 200 people us it! Get shot of it Living the La Vida Legra

6:14pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Joe Clark says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
Slowly the one asset left to SBC is being sold off.
Where does it say that, that section of beach is being sold off?

I did not see it mentioned anywhere so would you please show me where it states that the beach is up for sale, as I have cash sitting in my rather bloated bank account not doing anything and I would be interested in buying a section for myself and using it just for myself or develop a new attraction such as this thing I have come up with its called waterblast, you climb inside a giant canon and get blasted out into the water by a massive jet of water as you fly through the air people fire water jets at you.
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: Slowly the one asset left to SBC is being sold off.[/p][/quote]Where does it say that, that section of beach is being sold off? I did not see it mentioned anywhere so would you please show me where it states that the beach is up for sale, as I have cash sitting in my rather bloated bank account not doing anything and I would be interested in buying a section for myself and using it just for myself or develop a new attraction such as this thing I have come up with its called waterblast, you climb inside a giant canon and get blasted out into the water by a massive jet of water as you fly through the air people fire water jets at you. Joe Clark

6:54pm Tue 18 Feb 14

the25man says...

mickytaker wrote:
Here we go again, should we, or should we not build on the sea front,my answer emphatically NO.
Why should we alter and reconstruct the beach, whats in it for us, and then ask ,whats in it for the developers,does anyone realy believe that they are doing it for the benefit of the local residents or even the day trippers.or perhaps to enhance the area, NO, one reason only, Profit.
Go down to the beach area as soon as we get a glimmer of sunshine, and the place is packed, from the Pier to Chalkwell,so why would anyone argue jantone it will bring in hundreds more people, perhaps jantone you should do another one of your surveys??.
People that walk the front like the views of the water not the dirty mud and rubbish. A lagoon is in keeping with that view. The profit is not the lagoon but from people enjoying the view and using the Three Shells. This is not a building blocking the sea views.
[quote][p][bold]mickytaker[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, should we, or should we not build on the sea front,my answer emphatically NO. Why should we alter and reconstruct the beach, whats in it for us, and then ask ,whats in it for the developers,does anyone realy believe that they are doing it for the benefit of the local residents or even the day trippers.or perhaps to enhance the area, NO, one reason only, Profit. Go down to the beach area as soon as we get a glimmer of sunshine, and the place is packed, from the Pier to Chalkwell,so why would anyone argue jantone it will bring in hundreds more people, perhaps jantone you should do another one of your surveys??.[/p][/quote]People that walk the front like the views of the water not the dirty mud and rubbish. A lagoon is in keeping with that view. The profit is not the lagoon but from people enjoying the view and using the Three Shells. This is not a building blocking the sea views. the25man

7:17pm Tue 18 Feb 14

jantone says...

HI, Mickeytaker!!
I thought you would comment on this one!!
No more surveys, it just makes common sense to erect something there which is an attraction for people. And what's wrong with more palm trees?
As for the floating restaurant, bet your bottom dollar it will be built. The designers' new plan will make it 100% in the bag!! Do you fancy meeting me there for a coffee when it's erected?!!!
HI, Mickeytaker!! I thought you would comment on this one!! No more surveys, it just makes common sense to erect something there which is an attraction for people. And what's wrong with more palm trees? As for the floating restaurant, bet your bottom dollar it will be built. The designers' new plan will make it 100% in the bag!! Do you fancy meeting me there for a coffee when it's erected?!!! jantone

8:18pm Tue 18 Feb 14

John Bull 40 says...

RochfordRob wrote:
'Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.'

What, a grotty, muddy beach full of builders' rubble, coke tins, fag ends, crisp packets and dog ****?

It's the Thames Estuary not the Cote D'Azure.
On a winters day you cant move for scientists on that section of beach, at
least I think they are scientists!
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: 'Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.' What, a grotty, muddy beach full of builders' rubble, coke tins, fag ends, crisp packets and dog ****? It's the Thames Estuary not the Cote D'Azure.[/p][/quote]On a winters day you cant move for scientists on that section of beach, at least I think they are scientists! John Bull 40

8:12am Wed 19 Feb 14

CaptainBlackadder says...

live in westcliff wrote:
I am all for the lagoon being built, it is just what is needed when the tide is out. The proposed trees lining the trees sound nice too. I think everything Philip Miller has done for the Seafront is positive.

I think back to how it looked 20 years ago and there is a massive improvement. What we have to remember is people come to Southend in the summer to have entertainment, go swimming and just have a fun day out. There is plenty of room further on where people can go for a nice walk. Also Mr Miller is creating an environment where people will choose to stay longer into the evening. I heard a new restaurant is going to be opening on Pier Hill soon and feel that the improvements on the seafront are huge over the past 10 years. Keep up the good work and Southend Council please allow this to go ahead. Also I liked the idea of the floating restaurant and was disappointed that didn't get approval. Unfortunately in life you get people who complain about everything what they fail to realise is investment is good it shows a positive and confident attitude to the town and attracts visitors and an upbeat feeling. The proposed floating restaurant looked amazing and look at what it was replacing ...an old tea shack.
Thank you for that bit of hero worship -how's the 'Miller for Pope' campaign going?!
[quote][p][bold]live in westcliff[/bold] wrote: I am all for the lagoon being built, it is just what is needed when the tide is out. The proposed trees lining the trees sound nice too. I think everything Philip Miller has done for the Seafront is positive. I think back to how it looked 20 years ago and there is a massive improvement. What we have to remember is people come to Southend in the summer to have entertainment, go swimming and just have a fun day out. There is plenty of room further on where people can go for a nice walk. Also Mr Miller is creating an environment where people will choose to stay longer into the evening. I heard a new restaurant is going to be opening on Pier Hill soon and feel that the improvements on the seafront are huge over the past 10 years. Keep up the good work and Southend Council please allow this to go ahead. Also I liked the idea of the floating restaurant and was disappointed that didn't get approval. Unfortunately in life you get people who complain about everything what they fail to realise is investment is good it shows a positive and confident attitude to the town and attracts visitors and an upbeat feeling. The proposed floating restaurant looked amazing and look at what it was replacing ...an old tea shack.[/p][/quote]Thank you for that bit of hero worship -how's the 'Miller for Pope' campaign going?! CaptainBlackadder

10:09am Wed 19 Feb 14

Chris Flunk says...

Hock89 wrote:
dhd wrote:
Hock89 wrote:
dhd wrote:
Hock89 wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"
Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.
Not trying to be clever, just frustrating when people start moaning about the environment etc... when obviously dont actually know anything about it, just quote paragraphs from the article and claim you know about it. I find it hard to believe that the "Environment" will be damaged, what's there to be damaged? besides, if this forshore is a SSSI then im gathering so was the part which adventure island has flattened....and yet no one is moaning about that.
What do you mean I 'obviously' don't know anything about it? Are you for real? Have you any idea what lives in the sea and the implications of this development? Just because not everything Is visible with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there. That's why it's an SSSI. Do some homework.
yes....i am for real. Do some homework?? haha...didn't you just quote "Specific" instead of "special"??? no idon't know what lives under the sea....please tell me? and please tell me what implications this development will have?
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
SpongeBob SquarePants!
Absorbent and yellow and porous is he!

Do you want them to squash his little pineapple house? Well? Do you?
[quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dhd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hock89[/bold] wrote: mmm...i think you mean "Special Scientific Interest"[/p][/quote]Stop trying to be clever and distract from the issue, try and concentrate on the story. SSI and the environment all comes under one roof.[/p][/quote]Not trying to be clever, just frustrating when people start moaning about the environment etc... when obviously dont actually know anything about it, just quote paragraphs from the article and claim you know about it. I find it hard to believe that the "Environment" will be damaged, what's there to be damaged? besides, if this forshore is a SSSI then im gathering so was the part which adventure island has flattened....and yet no one is moaning about that.[/p][/quote]What do you mean I 'obviously' don't know anything about it? Are you for real? Have you any idea what lives in the sea and the implications of this development? Just because not everything Is visible with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there. That's why it's an SSSI. Do some homework.[/p][/quote]yes....i am for real. Do some homework?? haha...didn't you just quote "Specific" instead of "special"??? no idon't know what lives under the sea....please tell me? and please tell me what implications this development will have?[/p][/quote]Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? SpongeBob SquarePants! Absorbent and yellow and porous is he! Do you want them to squash his little pineapple house? Well? Do you? Chris Flunk

10:31am Wed 19 Feb 14

stopmoaning1 says...

the25man wrote:
The Stockvale Group has brought a lot of life to the sea front and has kept Southend a place to visit. A lagoon would help the front and be more in keeping with a sea front. The yacht Club with their unsjghtly wooden thing to store boats on does not help with the fore shore and as its been there sometime so any wild life it disturbed when first put up have adapted to it the same as they would with the lagoon.
So a yacht club with 'BOATS' is not in keeping with the seafront. Really?
I thought boats and the sea went very well together.
So do you want to get rid of all the yacht clubs on the estuary then? yes, let's get all those unsightly boats away from the seafront.
[quote][p][bold]the25man[/bold] wrote: The Stockvale Group has brought a lot of life to the sea front and has kept Southend a place to visit. A lagoon would help the front and be more in keeping with a sea front. The yacht Club with their unsjghtly wooden thing to store boats on does not help with the fore shore and as its been there sometime so any wild life it disturbed when first put up have adapted to it the same as they would with the lagoon.[/p][/quote]So a yacht club with 'BOATS' is not in keeping with the seafront. Really? I thought boats and the sea went very well together. So do you want to get rid of all the yacht clubs on the estuary then? yes, let's get all those unsightly boats away from the seafront. stopmoaning1

8:18pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Bolloximian says...

I dare say Southend Council would be more than happy to have someone build public toilets on the seafront. Does the council not have a responsibility to provide such conveniences ?
The idea of a replacement jetty and slipway seems a good one. Whether or not the Stockvale Group would be willing to pay for it remains to be seen.
As for marine life, my gut feeling is that it could actually benefit from the construction of such a lagoon. Then again, I'm not an expert.
Anyway, a football pitch really isn't all that big.
I dare say Southend Council would be more than happy to have someone build public toilets on the seafront. Does the council not have a responsibility to provide such conveniences ? The idea of a replacement jetty and slipway seems a good one. Whether or not the Stockvale Group would be willing to pay for it remains to be seen. As for marine life, my gut feeling is that it could actually benefit from the construction of such a lagoon. Then again, I'm not an expert. Anyway, a football pitch really isn't all that big. Bolloximian

6:33pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Joe Clark says...

So the Sealife Centre is wanted to expand what are peoples views, I say yes to it but I guess there will be those against as there always is.
So the Sealife Centre is wanted to expand what are peoples views, I say yes to it but I guess there will be those against as there always is. Joe Clark

7:29pm Thu 20 Feb 14

reg reg says...

RochfordRob wrote:
'Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.'

What, a grotty, muddy beach full of builders' rubble, coke tins, fag ends, crisp packets and dog ****?

It's the Thames Estuary not the Cote D'Azure.
you again with more b**lsh**t
is there not one thing in this world you are not an expert on ?
you are the oracle you are the one !
fancy just rubbishing your own town for the sake of being crass !
look at me say i know it all say i know it all !
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: 'Natural England, a public body charged with protecting the natural environment, has warned the 120metre long steel, rock and boulder wall built to create the pool is likely to affect the foreshore, which is a site of specific scientific interest.' What, a grotty, muddy beach full of builders' rubble, coke tins, fag ends, crisp packets and dog ****? It's the Thames Estuary not the Cote D'Azure.[/p][/quote]you again with more b**lsh**t is there not one thing in this world you are not an expert on ? you are the oracle you are the one ! fancy just rubbishing your own town for the sake of being crass ! look at me say i know it all say i know it all ! reg reg

10:22pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Sybian Sue says...

Im looking forward to a bit of a cool down in the lagoon after a donkey ride.
Im looking forward to a bit of a cool down in the lagoon after a donkey ride. Sybian Sue

8:37am Sat 22 Feb 14

norfolkbroad says...

Wonderful. First a restaurant that would have blighted the view. Then a huge metal tank 'lagoon' which would kill sailing in our seaside , and now a massive animal enclosure which will also dominate the area and block out even more of the view...why not just give what is left of the whole seafront to this awful group and watch them fill it up till we can't get anywhere near the water. If the 'lagoon' goes ahead there will be no beach left in Southend at all. God help the poor creatures in this expanded zoo - the place to see seals is off the shore of Westcliff, not in captivity.

I don't believe the jobs argument either. Badly paid, seasonal work is not a real job. Our population deserve proper jobs which come from investment in proper infrastructure projects which offer full-time work with decent pay.

Stockvale will also stomp on other traders in the area until they leave.

Some of us find all the 'expansion' ghastly and unsightly. This doesn't mean we are anti-development. Stockvale have far too much power with the Council as can be seen by looking at 3 Shells beach - even before planning has been approved Miller is moving boulders onto the beach - who gave him permission for that?
Wonderful. First a restaurant that would have blighted the view. Then a huge metal tank 'lagoon' which would kill sailing in our seaside , and now a massive animal enclosure which will also dominate the area and block out even more of the view...why not just give what is left of the whole seafront to this awful group and watch them fill it up till we can't get anywhere near the water. If the 'lagoon' goes ahead there will be no beach left in Southend at all. God help the poor creatures in this expanded zoo - the place to see seals is off the shore of Westcliff, not in captivity. I don't believe the jobs argument either. Badly paid, seasonal work is not a real job. Our population deserve proper jobs which come from investment in proper infrastructure projects which offer full-time work with decent pay. Stockvale will also stomp on other traders in the area until they leave. Some of us find all the 'expansion' ghastly and unsightly. This doesn't mean we are anti-development. Stockvale have far too much power with the Council as can be seen by looking at 3 Shells beach - even before planning has been approved Miller is moving boulders onto the beach - who gave him permission for that? norfolkbroad

6:23pm Sat 22 Feb 14

tezzason1 says...

A lagoon would be a huge asset even when the tide is in for safe swimming. You are going to have life guards on duty and the salt water will be reticulated when the tide is in. We have a proliferation of lagoons and rock pools in North Queensland and they get drained frequency for cleaning. Entry is free. They open 365 days a year and are a magnet for your mums and their kids. The primary reason they were established, was that it is not safe to swim in the sea during the summer months. We don't have sharks in North Queensland as the salt water crocodiles have eaten them all. We have jellyfish. Baby ones called Irikandi that have a sting so painful that you wish you could die and go to heaven. And big b******s that can send you to heaven called box jellyfish.
A lagoon would be a huge asset even when the tide is in for safe swimming. You are going to have life guards on duty and the salt water will be reticulated when the tide is in. We have a proliferation of lagoons and rock pools in North Queensland and they get drained frequency for cleaning. Entry is free. They open 365 days a year and are a magnet for your mums and their kids. The primary reason they were established, was that it is not safe to swim in the sea during the summer months. We don't have sharks in North Queensland as the salt water crocodiles have eaten them all. We have jellyfish. Baby ones called Irikandi that have a sting so painful that you wish you could die and go to heaven. And big b******s that can send you to heaven called box jellyfish. tezzason1

6:55pm Sun 23 Feb 14

w-jback says...

Those who are against this for environment reasons do realise that most of the seafront land, from the cliffs forward, the length of the seafront is man made? all of Adventure island and most of the land the roadways and pavements sit on never existed 150 years ago, If building had been banned then by the same blinkered types we wouldn't have a seafront, the cliffs or a fair bit of the town, which would have eroded into the Thames like most of "Milton" did. Little things like the Lagoon are just an extension of all that work.
Those who are against this for environment reasons do realise that most of the seafront land, from the cliffs forward, the length of the seafront is man made? all of Adventure island and most of the land the roadways and pavements sit on never existed 150 years ago, If building had been banned then by the same blinkered types we wouldn't have a seafront, the cliffs or a fair bit of the town, which would have eroded into the Thames like most of "Milton" did. Little things like the Lagoon are just an extension of all that work. w-jback

5:43pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Letmetryagain says...

I have yet to see how much it will cost to access this lagoon.
That's if it ever gets built.
I have yet to see how much it will cost to access this lagoon. That's if it ever gets built. Letmetryagain

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