Boats to be evacuated from bomb site

Southend Standard: The boats The boats

THIRTY-ONE boats are to be moved from Shoebury East Beach as part of the operation to clear explosives from the sand.

The beach has been temporarily closed by Southend Council to allow the Ministry of Defence to clear the beach of unexploded ordnance after live bombs were found.

The area is considered so dangerous, the council says owners of boats kept on dry ground over the winter must not use the slipway on the beach to launch their boats.

Instead, the council is to hire a crane and trailer to transport the 31 boats to another area.

Angry boat owners believe it would be perfectly safe to use the concrete slipway at high tide.

One boat owner, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “We were just two days away from casting off for the season when this all kicked off. We are keen fishermen, but because we are stuck here the best part of the fishing season is getting away from us.

“It is such a shame as it was so close to us setting off, but now it is actually going to end up costing Southend Council a lot of money.

“The handling of the situation has been a bit over the top as we did ask if we could go off when the tide is high, but were told we couldn’t, yet the council and MoD are just dragging their feet around. It is a mess.”

Independent Shoebury councillor Mike Assenheim said: “I have asked how much this is all going to cost. I’ve spoken to the boat owners and they are not very happy about it all.

“The closure has been very inconvenient for everyone.”

Scott Dolling, interim head of economy, regeneration and tourism, said: “We have been in discussions with the boat owners since the temporary closure of the beach was introduced, as they will not be able to launch from their current position until the beach is re-opened.

“We understand this is an inconvenience, but public safety must take priority. One option that we have discussed with them is to move them to an alternative location and allow them to launch from there.

“We are looking at locations, awaiting quotes and considering the discussions with the MoD before making a final decision on this course of action.”

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:27am Tue 20 May 14

VeteranOfMany says...

Ludicrous ! though the council it would seem are looking at ways to reinforce their decision to fence off the beach, and by moving these boats, are thus making the whole situation seem an absolute must.
Fact is at high tide the boats could be launched without any danger posed from the non existent threat.
The term WMD comes to mind, making the East Beach fiasco seem much much worse than it is.
Ludicrous ! though the council it would seem are looking at ways to reinforce their decision to fence off the beach, and by moving these boats, are thus making the whole situation seem an absolute must. Fact is at high tide the boats could be launched without any danger posed from the non existent threat. The term WMD comes to mind, making the East Beach fiasco seem much much worse than it is. VeteranOfMany
  • Score: 5

11:51am Tue 20 May 14

pembury53 says...

VeteranOfMany wrote:
Ludicrous ! though the council it would seem are looking at ways to reinforce their decision to fence off the beach, and by moving these boats, are thus making the whole situation seem an absolute must. Fact is at high tide the boats could be launched without any danger posed from the non existent threat. The term WMD comes to mind, making the East Beach fiasco seem much much worse than it is.
another decision, made without any reasoning, or the merest iota of intelligence, just the robotic, tick box mentallity of useless individuals, incapable of rising to the real challenge of governance....... in this case, 'public safety' has certainly taken priority..... over monumental stupidity
[quote][p][bold]VeteranOfMany[/bold] wrote: Ludicrous ! though the council it would seem are looking at ways to reinforce their decision to fence off the beach, and by moving these boats, are thus making the whole situation seem an absolute must. Fact is at high tide the boats could be launched without any danger posed from the non existent threat. The term WMD comes to mind, making the East Beach fiasco seem much much worse than it is.[/p][/quote]another decision, made without any reasoning, or the merest iota of intelligence, just the robotic, tick box mentallity of useless individuals, incapable of rising to the real challenge of governance....... in this case, 'public safety' has certainly taken priority..... over monumental stupidity pembury53
  • Score: 5

12:34pm Tue 20 May 14

emcee says...

The "shared space" on Southend Seafront poses more danger than East Beach. Closing the beach in the first place was a rediculous decision but how the council can justify the closure of the slipway is way beyond any comprehension.
The council are making themselves look like right t*ts over this fiasco.
The "shared space" on Southend Seafront poses more danger than East Beach. Closing the beach in the first place was a rediculous decision but how the council can justify the closure of the slipway is way beyond any comprehension. The council are making themselves look like right t*ts over this fiasco. emcee
  • Score: 9

2:21pm Tue 20 May 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

The MoD own the beach, which is leased to the council, perhaps the MoD could settle it, by revoking the lease, end of problem.
The MoD own the beach, which is leased to the council, perhaps the MoD could settle it, by revoking the lease, end of problem. Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: 1

4:57pm Tue 20 May 14

emcee says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
The MoD own the beach, which is leased to the council, perhaps the MoD could settle it, by revoking the lease, end of problem.
As public access to the beach was provided in good faith by the MOD, and some livelyhoods have, quite rightly, been allowed to build up around this public access, any withdrawl of this access would need to carry a massive justification to do so.
In providing the council with the "lease" to provide public access, the MOD would have had a duty to ensure the beach was safe from dangerous ordnance in the first place and after all this time the MOD not wanting to own it's responsibilities is no justifcation to withdraw the lease. To do so would create a publicity and/or a political nightmare.
Having said that, it seems that the MOD (the experts in these matters) do not consider it unsafe, judging by the non urgent way they have treated this situation. It is the council who are judging it unsafe and are demanding action, and it is they who closed the beach. As it was the councils decision, why would the MOD care if the council are throwing a hissy fit?
The same scenario may be where a tenant demands his landlord replaces the whole roof just because a tile came loose and refusing to live in the house until such work is carried out. The landlord will replace the tile in his own good time if no further damage is being caused and will not give two hoots whether the tenant wants to live in the house or not. Why should he need cancel the tenancy just because the tenant is being a t*t? As long as the rent is being paid.
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: The MoD own the beach, which is leased to the council, perhaps the MoD could settle it, by revoking the lease, end of problem.[/p][/quote]As public access to the beach was provided in good faith by the MOD, and some livelyhoods have, quite rightly, been allowed to build up around this public access, any withdrawl of this access would need to carry a massive justification to do so. In providing the council with the "lease" to provide public access, the MOD would have had a duty to ensure the beach was safe from dangerous ordnance in the first place and after all this time the MOD not wanting to own it's responsibilities is no justifcation to withdraw the lease. To do so would create a publicity and/or a political nightmare. Having said that, it seems that the MOD (the experts in these matters) do not consider it unsafe, judging by the non urgent way they have treated this situation. It is the council who are judging it unsafe and are demanding action, and it is they who closed the beach. As it was the councils decision, why would the MOD care if the council are throwing a hissy fit? The same scenario may be where a tenant demands his landlord replaces the whole roof just because a tile came loose and refusing to live in the house until such work is carried out. The landlord will replace the tile in his own good time if no further damage is being caused and will not give two hoots whether the tenant wants to live in the house or not. Why should he need cancel the tenancy just because the tenant is being a t*t? As long as the rent is being paid. emcee
  • Score: 6

7:59pm Mon 2 Jun 14

JimThompson says...

Just as well those bombs only wash up on East Beach otherwise they would need to close every beach either side of the Thames estuary.

https://www.facebook
.com/groups/SaveEast
Beach/
Just as well those bombs only wash up on East Beach otherwise they would need to close every beach either side of the Thames estuary. https://www.facebook .com/groups/SaveEast Beach/ JimThompson
  • 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