Damage to Sea bed

Channel bed to be stripped to build 200,000 new homes
By Richard Sadler and Geoffrey Lean
14 March 2004


Ministers are planning to strip clean a vitally important area of the seabed
in the English Channel to satisfy the housebuilding boom in the South-east.

They are expected to authorise the mining of nearly 200 million tonnes of
gravel from the Median Deep - a crucial nursery for fish, halfway between
the Sussex coast and northern France.

An investigation by BBC1's Countryfile and The Independent on Sunday has
revealed that the Government - which stands to make tens of millions of
pounds in royalties - has already given its approval in principle to opening
up new areas of the seabed.

The plans have caused outrage among fishermen on both sides of the Channel
and among environmentalists, who say the Government risks breaking EU laws
designed to protect fragile seabed habitats.

The sand and gravel de-posits of the Median Deep, which were deposited by
ancient rivers when Britain was joined to the European mainland, provide an
important habitat for carnivorous anemones, sponges, sea squirts and
coral-like reefs, which are protected under EU law. These in turn provide
fertile spawning grounds for crabs, shrimps, scallops, cod, plaice, bass,
sole and herring, and so are vital to maintaining fisheries.

But sand and gravel - or aggregates - are also the main ingredient for
concrete. And this will be needed in vast amounts for the 200,000 houses
that John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, plans to build in the
South-east during the next two decades. Environmental protests and planning
restrictions are making it increasingly difficult to mine these aggregates
on land.

About half of the aggregates used in London and the South-east now come from
the seabed, and this is expected to increase with Mr Prescott's building
boom. But existing dredging grounds off the East Anglian coast and in the
Thames estuary are close to exhaustion.

Now a consortium of six dredging companies wants to exploit the Median Deep
and the Government is expected to give them the go-ahead. Mr Prescott's
office has told the South-East Regional Assembly - responsible for minerals
planning - that a minimum of 120 million tonnes of sand and gravel must come
from seabed deposits.

And, according to the assembly's latest minerals plan, "this will largely
depend on the granting of additional dredging licences ... in particular to
exploit new resources in the east English Channel."

The companies are seeking 15-year licences to extract up to 177 million
tonnes of aggregates, covering 80 square miles of the seabed. Seismic
surveys have revealed total reserves of 250 million tonnes.

Ian Hepburn, regional policy director for the Wildlife Trusts, says: "What
the Deputy Prime Minister is saying is, 'assume these licences will be
granted' - yet we still haven't gone through the proper environmental impact
procedures.

Lisa Browning, the trusts' marine conservation officer, adds that the life
of the seabed would take decades to recover from the dredging, and might
never do so. She says that if it goes ahead, the Government risks being
hauled before the European Court for breaching the EU Habitats Directive.

Paul Joy, chairman of the Hastings Fishermen's Protection Society, adds:
"It's far easier to say we'll dredge at sea because there aren't so many
environmentalists who can see what is going on compared to if it was on
shore," he says. "But the long-term implications are not being taken into
consideration. We don't know enough about the area or the fisheries."

Dr Andrew Bellamy, of the British Marine Aggregate Producers' Association,
accepts that some long-lived marine habitats may take many years to recover,
but said that surveys suggested that these habitats were abundant in other
areas of the Channel. "These impacts are manageable in that we're dredging
very small areas at one time, and there's now a huge body of research which
shows that dredged areas do recover."

A spokeswoman for the Deputy Prime Minister's Office said: "Dredging
licences for the eastern Channel will not be granted unless we are satisfied
that there are no adverse environmental impacts on the seabed, sea life or
the coast. We work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, who have specialist environmental laboratories, and we also
require from the applicants a coastal impact and environmental assessment.
We do make estimates of future supply needs based on existing patterns of
licences - but we are merely forecasting the potential for future supplies,
we are not pre-empting any decisions over future licences."

"I" wrote in message
...
Channel bed to be stripped to build 200,000 new homes
By Richard Sadler and Geoffrey Lean
14 March 2004
--------------------------------------------------
I was reading a book "Hallsands a village betrayed"
This was a small village along the SW coast in start bay. Around 1915-1917
dredging for aggravates was allowed in the bay, this resulted the beach
slipping back into the bay to replace the material removed.
The end result was that the village was swept a way. You can still see the
remains.
I know that this was in a much smaller scale, but surely if you keep
removing material from the sea bed other material will move in to replace it
from our shores in the course of time.
As an after thought, if we need all this housing. Why are we allowing so
many people (that litterally break into this country) to stay?.

As an after thought, if we need all this housing. Why are we allowing so
many people (that litterally break into this country) to stay?.

My understanding is that the sea would naturally produce a curved coastline
if the material the land is made of was all the same. This scheme sounds
crazy to me, bound to cause problems elsewhere.
As to the final point, we live in an already overcrowded island. From what I
can see we don't need any more people, regardless of race, colour etc, that
has nothing to do with the available space. More people will inevitably mean
more building, when will we say enough is enough, when it is too late, I
expect and the whole island is covered in concrete urban ghettos.

but surely if you keepremoving material from the sea bed other material will
move in to replace it
if we need all this housing. Why are we allowing so many people to stay?

Two very valid points and I brought this up years ago when dredging was allowed
off the IOW. Aggregates do move with the tides and will infill any holes left
in the seabed, eventually. It may be many years but they will move. Secondly,
we allow all these people to come here because the government is afraid of
being called "racist"
if they don't allow them in and this government is in favour of a
"multicultural society" what ever that is. We've never had a referendum on if
we, the British, want a multicultural society, perhaps a different government
might allow us one, maybe, perhaps but unlikely. Cheers, Norman.

In message , SEAANGLING
writes
but surely if you keepremoving material from the sea bed other material will
move in to replace it
if we need all this housing. Why are we allowing so many people to stay?

Two very valid points and I brought this up years ago when dredging was allowed
off the IOW. Aggregates do move with the tides and will infill any holes left
in the seabed, eventually. It may be many years but they will move. Secondly,
we allow all these people to come here because the government is afraid of
being called "racist"
if they don't allow them in and this government is in favour of a
"multicultural society" what ever that is. We've never had a referendum on if
we, the British, want a multicultural society, perhaps a different government
might allow us one, maybe, perhaps but unlikely. Cheers, Norman.

Bring back Maggie Thatcher, if she can't be bothered anymore then I'm
afraid we'll have to get the BNP into power and some really extreme
politics...

--
Matt - Dorset.
It only takes two-strokes to excite me (or a threesome :-))

why don't they just come up here and dredge the river exe, it's only a
matter of time before the exe fills
right up with sand and noone can get in or out!
the life boat has had to be removed several times for repairs because the
props keep hitting the bottom
and snapping shafts and obviously damaging the propellers!
god knows why they won't dredge the exe, does someone have to die before the
lifeboat can get to them before anything is done?

rich

"Alex" wrote in message
...

"I" wrote in message
...
Channel bed to be stripped to build 200,000 new homes
By Richard Sadler and Geoffrey Lean
14 March 2004
--------------------------------------------------
I was reading a book "Hallsands a village betrayed"
This was a small village along the SW coast in start bay. Around 1915-1917
dredging for aggravates was allowed in the bay, this resulted the beach
slipping back into the bay to replace the material removed.
The end result was that the village was swept a way. You can still see the
remains.
I know that this was in a much smaller scale, but surely if you keep
removing material from the sea bed other material will move in to replace
it
from our shores in the course of time.
As an after thought, if we need all this housing. Why are we allowing so
many people (that litterally break into this country) to stay?.

I would agree, stop the influx of migrants and the townies wouldn't want to
move to the country, therefore less housing required. Stop the migrants
and local councils wouldn't be buying up all the cheap housing therefore
adding to the housing price increases (it's true, it's happening here).

Failiung that, dont worry, when the hole appears on the south coast,......
just fill it with John Prescott, at least his head is big enough, add Blair
and we have enough primordial soup to create another environmental
revolution.

Steve

"I" wrote in message
...
Channel bed to be stripped to build 200,000 new homes
By Richard Sadler and Geoffrey Lean
14 March 2004


what people in the UK often fail to appreciate,
is that most (ALL) people living there descend from 'migrant' stock,
Beakers, Scots, Picts, Celts, Britons, Romans plus Misc,
Saxon, Anglo, Danes, misc Germanic, Norse, Normans, French, Dutch, etc etc
etc.
all people either looking for a better life or fleeing persecution.
10,000 years ago there was nobody lining in the British Isles.
another fallacy is the increasing population,
the real fact is that in most western countries the average age is
increasing,
the 'Baby Boomers' have come and gone, and there's less than 2 kids per
household now.
so a decreasing population, the pop bump moves through the age range.
which explains why Industry cant find workers, and the CBI and co like
immigration.
another thing is that with a more mature or affuent society, nobody wants
their kids to work in Factorys,
so you get the sitiuation where the Temp Agencys are sending 60+ YOs into
factorys.
and its rare to see anybody under 30 working with their hands anymore.
it happened post WW2 there was a shortage of manual workers , so the
Goverment encouraged
Jamaicans and others to come to Britain to settle and work, plus a lot of
POWs who decided to stay
rather than go back to a ruined mainland Europe.
regards malcolm

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:S8w5c.19488$po.241871@attbi_s52...

"I" wrote in message
...
Channel bed to be stripped to build 200,000 new homes
By Richard Sadler and Geoffrey Lean
14 March 2004


what people in the UK often fail to appreciate,
is that most (ALL) people living there descend from 'migrant' stock,
Beakers, Scots, Picts, Celts, Britons, Romans plus Misc,
Saxon, Anglo, Danes, misc Germanic, Norse, Normans, French, Dutch, etc etc
etc.
all people either looking for a better life or fleeing persecution.
10,000 years ago there was nobody lining in the British Isles.
another fallacy is the increasing population,
the real fact is that in most western countries the average age is
increasing,
the 'Baby Boomers' have come and gone, and there's less than 2 kids per
household now.
so a decreasing population, the pop bump moves through the age range.
which explains why Industry cant find workers, and the CBI and co like
immigration.
another thing is that with a more mature or affuent society, nobody wants
their kids to work in Factorys,
so you get the sitiuation where the Temp Agencys are sending 60+ YOs into
factorys.
and its rare to see anybody under 30 working with their hands anymore.
it happened post WW2 there was a shortage of manual workers , so the
Goverment encouraged
Jamaicans and others to come to Britain to settle and work, plus a lot of
POWs who decided to stay
rather than go back to a ruined mainland Europe.
regards malcolm



PS: if you want your Garbage collected, Pools cleaned,
Pizzas made and delivered and all those menial jobs done ,
you have to have an influx of younger people into the UK to do the jobs.

Question:
how many long termed unemployed, people on disability,
or just unwilling to work, now in the UK?

Question:
how many long termed unemployed, people on disability,
or just unwilling to work, now in the UK?

So, we don't need the immigrants to do the jobs, we just need to get our own
unemployed to do them. How about stopping their benefit? Just a thought before
the human rights activists gang up on me, cheers, Norman.