IRATE residents are calling for a public meeting over Borough of Poole plans to put five rock groynes on the beach at Branksome.
An application to build the sea defences between Branksome Chine and Branksome Dene Chine is due to go before the planning committee today.
But Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs and District Residents' Association wants the item deferred and has written a letter of objection to the Secretary of State at Defra.
advertisement
Sixteen residents have also sent letters of objection to the Borough of Poole outlining a risk to swimmers from the rock structures, and criticising the potential impact on the beach, water and tourism.
"There is no proven need for additional structures on the beach," said Peter Jackson in the residents' association letter.
"Even if there were, rock groynes are not appropriate to heavily used holiday beaches.
"They pose a serious threat to public amenity and public safety."
He said there has been no consultation with the association or public, despite the council being well aware of past objections to rock groynes.
Cllr Peter Adams, cabinet portfolio holder for leisure, said: "Poole's beaches are a major asset for the borough and any loss of beach would significantly harm the town's tourist trade.
"Based on the independent report by specialist consultants HR Wallingford, officers believe rock groynes offer the most practical solution to the problem of coastal erosion.
"Without them we would be faced with rapid erosion and further loss of sand, threatening the future of the entire beach.
"This proposal would safeguard the beach's short and medium-term future while also offering further potential for its recreational use."
He pointed out the application was being considered at a public meeting.
Posted by: Bizzybody, Poole on 7:23pm Wed 27 Aug 08
The report is by engineers who don't have to assess the impact on amenity views and use. These groynes are overkill - 5 in such a short distance - such barriers on a sweeping sandy bay. Why the rush - most people don't know about this. The goynes will ruin the beach and bay and last for the rest of our lifes. Consider all alternatives publicly as counsellors come and go but residents are here forever.
The report is by engineers who don't have to assess the impact on amenity views and use. These groynes are overkill - 5 in such a short distance - such barriers on a sweeping sandy bay. Why the rush - most people don't know about this. The goynes will ruin the beach and bay and last for the rest of our lifes. Consider all alternatives publicly as counsellors come and go but residents are here forever.
Posted by: Bizzybody, Poole on 7:23pm Wed 27 Aug 08
The report is by engineers who don't have to assess the impact on amenity views and use. These groynes are overkill - 5 in such a short distance - such barriers on a sweeping sandy bay. Why the rush - most people don't know about this. The goynes will ruin the beach and bay and last for the rest of our lifes. Consider all alternatives publicly as counsellors come and go but residents are here forever.
The report is by engineers who don't have to assess the impact on amenity views and use. These groynes are overkill - 5 in such a short distance - such barriers on a sweeping sandy bay. Why the rush - most people don't know about this. The goynes will ruin the beach and bay and last for the rest of our lifes. Consider all alternatives publicly as counsellors come and go but residents are here forever.
It is a pity that the detractors of groynes did not see the Northern end of Swanage beach before the expenditure of millions.
The sand had been eroded, largely because the groyned had rotted and were not doing their job.
All the groynes have now been replaced and thousands of tons of sand, most dredged form the Swash Channel, pumped ashore.
I wish I had taken 'before & after' pictures.
Put the groynes in at Branksome.... Save the beach!
It is a pity that the detractors of groynes did not see the Northern end of Swanage beach before the expenditure of millions.
The sand had been eroded, largely because the groyned had rotted and were not doing their job.
All the groynes have now been replaced and thousands of tons of sand, most dredged form the Swash Channel, pumped ashore.
I wish I had taken 'before & after' pictures.
Put the groynes in at Branksome.... Save the beach!
Posted by: Bizzybody, Poole on 8:35pm Wed 27 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Tony Jordan[/bold] wrote:
It is a pity that the detractors of groynes did not see the Northern end of Swanage beach before the expenditure of millions. The sand had been eroded, largely because the groyned had rotted and were not doing their job. All the groynes have now been replaced and thousands of tons of sand, most dredged form the Swash Channel, pumped ashore. I wish I had taken 'before & after' pictures. Put the groynes in at Branksome.... Save the beach! [/quote] What type of groynes were put in at Swanage? Were they massive rock groynes or wooden ones? I know what would be preferable. All options should be fully considered without rushing.
Tony Jordan wrote:
It is a pity that the detractors of groynes did not see the Northern end of Swanage beach before the expenditure of millions. The sand had been eroded, largely because the groyned had rotted and were not doing their job. All the groynes have now been replaced and thousands of tons of sand, most dredged form the Swash Channel, pumped ashore. I wish I had taken 'before & after' pictures. Put the groynes in at Branksome.... Save the beach!
What type of groynes were put in at Swanage? Were they massive rock groynes or wooden ones? I know what would be preferable. All options should be fully considered without rushing.
Posted by: Bizzybody, Poole on 8:36pm Wed 27 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Tony Jordan[/bold] wrote:
It is a pity that the detractors of groynes did not see the Northern end of Swanage beach before the expenditure of millions. The sand had been eroded, largely because the groyned had rotted and were not doing their job. All the groynes have now been replaced and thousands of tons of sand, most dredged form the Swash Channel, pumped ashore. I wish I had taken 'before & after' pictures. Put the groynes in at Branksome.... Save the beach! [/quote] What type of groynes were put in at Swanage? Were they massive rock groynes or wooden ones? I know what would be preferable. All options should be fully considered without rushing.
Tony Jordan wrote:
It is a pity that the detractors of groynes did not see the Northern end of Swanage beach before the expenditure of millions. The sand had been eroded, largely because the groyned had rotted and were not doing their job. All the groynes have now been replaced and thousands of tons of sand, most dredged form the Swash Channel, pumped ashore. I wish I had taken 'before & after' pictures. Put the groynes in at Branksome.... Save the beach!
What type of groynes were put in at Swanage? Were they massive rock groynes or wooden ones? I know what would be preferable. All options should be fully considered without rushing.
These people would be begging for them if thier homes were under direct threat of the sea like other parts of the South coast.
It's just pure [bold]SNOBBERY[/bold]
These people would be begging for them if thier homes were under direct threat of the sea like other parts of the South coast.
It's just pure SNOBBERY
You people amaze me. Have you never heard of longshore drift? Without groynes the beach dissapears. There are three alternatives: Building wooden groynes, rock groynes or another artificial reef. I think the rock groynes look quite nice really. Tom for Xchurh is right. You are being ridiculous snobs.
You people amaze me. Have you never heard of longshore drift? Without groynes the beach dissapears. There are three alternatives: Building wooden groynes, rock groynes or another artificial reef. I think the rock groynes look quite nice really. Tom for Xchurh is right. You are being ridiculous snobs.
Posted by: In Absentia, Bournemouth on 9:27am Thu 28 Aug 08
Poole Council has a duty to spend Council Tax payers money as effectively as possible and if the rock structures are the most effective defences, then that's what should be done.
I'm amused by the 'risk to swimmers'. You're not supposed to swim near the groynes, whether wood or rock, so what's the difference?
Poole Council has a duty to spend Council Tax payers money as effectively as possible and if the rock structures are the most effective defences, then that's what should be done.
I'm amused by the 'risk to swimmers'. You're not supposed to swim near the groynes, whether wood or rock, so what's the difference?
Posted by: Bizzybody, Poole on 10:12am Thu 28 Aug 08
Longshore drift is virtually negative in Poole Bay due to the shelter from the Purbecks. Local people want the Council to consider all options not just an engineering solution. You may like rock groynes but 5 in a row and over 2 metres high are such a barrier
Longshore drift is virtually negative in Poole Bay due to the shelter from the Purbecks. Local people want the Council to consider all options not just an engineering solution. You may like rock groynes but 5 in a row and over 2 metres high are such a barrier
Longshore drift is virtually negative? Then why is the sand always higher on the western side of the Groynes? Why was the beach replaced two years ago? Do you think they put groynes in for a laugh?
Longshore drift is virtually negative? Then why is the sand always higher on the western side of the Groynes? Why was the beach replaced two years ago? Do you think they put groynes in for a laugh?
Posted by: In Absentia, Bournemouth on 11:49am Thu 28 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Bizzybody[/bold] wrote:
Longshore drift is virtually negative in Poole Bay due to the shelter from the Purbecks. Local people want the Council to consider all options not just an engineering solution. You may like rock groynes but 5 in a row and over 2 metres high are such a barrier [/quote] How on earth can anyone claim that Longshore drift is virtually negative in Poole Bay? Utter nonsense.
The Purbecks are'nt provding a lot of shelter for Studland are they?
Of course the rock groynes are'nt aesthetically pleasing, but it's better than not having any beaches at all.
Bizzybody wrote:
Longshore drift is virtually negative in Poole Bay due to the shelter from the Purbecks. Local people want the Council to consider all options not just an engineering solution. You may like rock groynes but 5 in a row and over 2 metres high are such a barrier
How on earth can anyone claim that Longshore drift is virtually negative in Poole Bay? Utter nonsense.
The Purbecks are'nt provding a lot of shelter for Studland are they?
Of course the rock groynes are'nt aesthetically pleasing, but it's better than not having any beaches at all.
Posted by: Bizzybody, Poole on 12:19pm Thu 28 Aug 08
STUDLANDS' BEACHES FACE EAST NOT SOUTH so effect is different. All we want are groynes that do not ruin the beach and factors other than engineering should be considered. Of course the beach should be protected but not over zealously
STUDLANDS' BEACHES FACE EAST NOT SOUTH so effect is different. All we want are groynes that do not ruin the beach and factors other than engineering should be considered. Of course the beach should be protected but not over zealously
Posted by: In Absentia, Bournemouth on 1:23pm Thu 28 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Bizzybody[/bold] wrote:
STUDLANDS' BEACHES FACE EAST NOT SOUTH so effect is different. All we want are groynes that do not ruin the beach and factors other than engineering should be considered. Of course the beach should be protected but not over zealously[/quote] Please provide a link to the scientific evidence that supports your claims. Otherwise, this is the usual subjective ranting that comes when people object to any planning application.
Bizzybody wrote:
STUDLANDS' BEACHES FACE EAST NOT SOUTH so effect is different. All we want are groynes that do not ruin the beach and factors other than engineering should be considered. Of course the beach should be protected but not over zealously
Please provide a link to the scientific evidence that supports your claims. Otherwise, this is the usual subjective ranting that comes when people object to any planning application.
[quote][bold]Tom[/bold] wrote:
These people would be begging for them if thier homes were under direct threat of the sea like other parts of the South coast. It's just pure [bold]SNOBBERY[/bold] [/quote] We already have them.
As i said it's just pure [bold]SNOBBERY[/bold] on your behalf
Tom wrote:
These people would be begging for them if thier homes were under direct threat of the sea like other parts of the South coast. It's just pure SNOBBERY
[quote][bold]Bizzybody[/bold] wrote:
You have them then cos i'd hate you to feel jealous and Xchurch is under greater threat.[/quote] Sorry right quote this time.
We already have them.
As i said it's just pure [bold]SNOBBERY[/bold] on your behalf
Bizzybody wrote:
You have them then cos i'd hate you to feel jealous and Xchurch is under greater threat.
Posted by: Bizzybody, Poole on 6:23pm Thu 28 Aug 08
Well that's it the Council have approved their own plan for rock groynes - hope they are proud of their legacy. Visit it in 6 months time then be honest what do you think?
Well that's it the Council have approved their own plan for rock groynes - hope they are proud of their legacy. Visit it in 6 months time then be honest what do you think?
Posted by: fedupwithjobsworths, Moordown on 11:08am Sat 30 Aug 08
Longshore drift is a natural phenomenon in Poole Bay, and our local coastline has always been prone to erosion (cliffs are a feature of an eroding coastline). The problem with groynes is that while they slow down this process they also interrupt the natural flow of beach material which may actually increase erosion at places further along the coast. I would have thought that a more scientific method would be to map out these natural flows of beach material and rely on more regular but smaller replenishments to top the beach up. It may only prove necessary to top up at a few locations and then rely on nature to spread the sand out evenly along the seafront.
Longshore drift is a natural phenomenon in Poole Bay, and our local coastline has always been prone to erosion (cliffs are a feature of an eroding coastline). The problem with groynes is that while they slow down this process they also interrupt the natural flow of beach material which may actually increase erosion at places further along the coast. I would have thought that a more scientific method would be to map out these natural flows of beach material and rely on more regular but smaller replenishments to top the beach up. It may only prove necessary to top up at a few locations and then rely on nature to spread the sand out evenly along the seafront.
Posted by: donCollier, Poole on 11:32am Sun 31 Aug 08
It is sadly becoming common place for the people who object to decisions to make loud false and and anonymous claims in places such as this that we are not listening or that we have acted hastily and or improperly. On this occasion the false impression being created by some people who remain prejudiced against rock groins and are saying so here and in other places needs to be shown up for what it is. Inaccurate and misleading. A fact emphasised by the complainants declining to speak at the planning meeting despite the fact that they attended!
I have been personally involved having either organised or been invited to speak at no less than six public meetings on this subject since 2003 and Cllr Adams was at one within the last two months. Each of these meetings went through the process in great detail. It is sad to hear the same old inaccuracies and errors still being repeated. I have also been involved with some of the meetings with the RNLI. Mr Jackson claims there is no proven need for the Groins, but the report his residents association had commission says there is. Mr jackson says they pose a serious threat to public amenity and public safety but there has not been one single accident since 2003 that supports that contention in which time Millions of people have enjoyed the beaches of Sandbanks and thousands of people have enjoyed walking to the end of them.
During these public meetings the biggest call was for the fewest structures we could have on the beach. Something I agree with. No one wanted to see the rows and rows of wooden groins we had before and so we explored alternatives. The alternative turned out to be a much smaller number of bigger ones an alternative which I first mooted in public in 2004.
This is not a pure engineering solution but a solution that matches need with a vast amount of public input.
It is sadly becoming common place for the people who object to decisions to make loud false and and anonymous claims in places such as this that we are not listening or that we have acted hastily and or improperly. On this occasion the false impression being created by some people who remain prejudiced against rock groins and are saying so here and in other places needs to be shown up for what it is. Inaccurate and misleading. A fact emphasised by the complainants declining to speak at the planning meeting despite the fact that they attended!
I have been personally involved having either organised or been invited to speak at no less than six public meetings on this subject since 2003 and Cllr Adams was at one within the last two months. Each of these meetings went through the process in great detail. It is sad to hear the same old inaccuracies and errors still being repeated. I have also been involved with some of the meetings with the RNLI. Mr Jackson claims there is no proven need for the Groins, but the report his residents association had commission says there is. Mr jackson says they pose a serious threat to public amenity and public safety but there has not been one single accident since 2003 that supports that contention in which time Millions of people have enjoyed the beaches of Sandbanks and thousands of people have enjoyed walking to the end of them.
During these public meetings the biggest call was for the fewest structures we could have on the beach. Something I agree with. No one wanted to see the rows and rows of wooden groins we had before and so we explored alternatives. The alternative turned out to be a much smaller number of bigger ones an alternative which I first mooted in public in 2004.
This is not a pure engineering solution but a solution that matches need with a vast amount of public input.
Posted by: Bizzybody, Poole on 4:28pm Tue 2 Sep 08
Time will tell as once built that's it. Are you sure or can you confirm publically that no additional groynes will be built (in next 20years) People have the right to raise concerns especially when a council is seeking planning permission from itself. Some of these concerns may be based on feelings rather than engineering facts but they should be considered,
Time will tell as once built that's it. Are you sure or can you confirm publically that no additional groynes will be built (in next 20years) People have the right to raise concerns especially when a council is seeking planning permission from itself. Some of these concerns may be based on feelings rather than engineering facts but they should be considered,
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
