The Stop Lovett & Bailey Team could not agree more with Martyn Ellis who describes Lovett & Baileys alternative proposal as 'the meanderings of an old man'.
Here is his views in full:
Dear Nick,
Thank you for the email relating to the flood defense at Shoebury Common. Whilst I appreciate all you do for the club I believe you are wrong on this occasion. I note with interest that neither yourself or Ray Bailey have a property that would be affected by any potential flooding and it is in the interest of the well being and safety of my family that I respond.
Putting this into perspective “On 1 February 1953, the North Sea Flood hit Canvey Island during the night and caused the deaths of 58 people” I for one would not like to see a repeat of this headline. Sadly like others I am unable to view any sketches in the alternative document and cannot make a fair and measured opinion of both schemes without these at present.
However, in my opinion many of the arguments raised in the alleged alternative design scheme appear unsubstantiated, weak and simply flawed in some cases. The introduction sounds like a group of people sat around a table and raised a wish list and list of moans;
“Impact on disabled (Mobility impaired) gaining access..”, no substantiation provided.
“Loss of privacy..”, again not substantiated.
“Health & safety issues when crossing the road”?
“New secure beach huts..” how nice…why? (I have one and don’t believe the rest of Shoeburys rate payers should sponsor it).
“Lifting the promenade will strengthen the sea wall” will it?
“Raising the boat ramp 900mm to match MOD wall”
If this relates to the TBYC slipway location? I cannot see this being practicable any ramp allowing vehicular access would have to start in the middle of the road. I could go on, and without disrespect the document appears to be the meanderings of an old man.
If there is to be a serious and viable alternative, it must be well thought out and properly presented, i would suggest the input of a designer/engineer to arrive at a proper scheme that will offer the needed protection. I work for one of the worlds largest Civil engineering companies, given the two offerings in there present form, the council’s option(s) appears the most valid.
Martyn
At least the Yacht Club cares about what their members think - Is that a problem? 1 - We queried disabled access because they could not access over steps? 2 - We queried H&S crossing the road through a flood gate / cycle path, which is why they moved the wall away from the cycle path. 3 - They shortened the length because the crest at St Augustine Avenue was 2.2 metres above the common. 4 - Security was a problem because beach huts would be enclosed, dark & suffer greater vandalism than they do now. 4 - It was the Ness Road slipway that needed raising, not the yacht club ramp. It shows just how much interest was shown in the facts presented. Are we again saying that people outside the area have no say, even if they use the areas facilities? I am sure the largest Civil Engineering Company in the world could have designed a better flood defence than Black & Veatch.
ReplyDelete