Skip to content

Crumbling away – Is dredging the villain in the drama of Britain’s eroding coasts?

April 30, 2023

By Paul Homewood

 

While the media is now determined to push the climate scare, it was not too long ago that they gave us serious analysis. Well respected science reporter, Fred Pearce, wrote this piece about coastal erosion in Hemsby and the rest of Norfolk back in 1996:

 

 image

EIGHTY years ago this winter, tides destroyed the coastal village of Hallsands in south Devon. The few remains are today a mecca for ghoulish geographers who come to see how offshore dredging-in this case from the building of the nearby Devonport dockyard-can expose a coastline to violent erosion.

On the other side of the country today, the residents of Norfolk villages such as Salthouse, Hemsby and Happisburgh fear that this winter their homes could join Hallsands beneath the waves. They believe a combination of ill-conceived coastal engineering and offshore dredging is stripping their coast of the sand and gravel needed to maintain beaches and stave off the assault of the sea. And they believe that planners and engineers, using out-of-date maps and quoting very low erosion rates, are blind to what is going on.

Take the coast road almost anywhere in Norfolk and you will see the evidence of rapid erosion. At Happisburgh, Beach Road vanishes over a cliff. From the edge, you can see what looks like a badly built brick chimney rising from the beach. The chimney is in fact a well, left intact when storms washed away the cliff around it a few weeks ago. A draft shoreline management plan drawn up by consulting engineers Sir William Halcrow in 1996 for local councils and the Environment Agency (EA) claims that the cliff here is retreating at “up to 2 metres per year”.

But the local council’s flood warden, Colin Daniels, says: “Up to 15 years ago this cliff was stable. Now the sea takes about 10 metres a year. Beach Road has gone since last winter, we lost 2 metres a fortnight ago and another metre since then.” And to cap it all, a line of houses shown on the map Halcrow published this year went over the cliff years ago.

And more than a few houses are at stake. Halcrow’s plan points out that behind Beach Road lie many low-lying villages, which are vulnerable to flooding, and the Norfolk Broads, a large area of scenic waterways and wildlife reserves. According to the plan: “Any further retreat of the coastline would result in widespread flooding.”

Refusing to pay

The Norfolk coast, like much of eastern England, is vulnerable to erosion. Its cliffs have been retreating throughout recorded history. Moreover, sea walls built after the great floods of 1953, which killed more than 300 people, are now crumbling away. The government is refusing to pay for repairs which cost more than the value of the property protected.

But, on this stretch of Norfolk’s coast at least, there is more to the story. In many places lines of dunes that until recently had been advancing are now being washed away, and the erosion of unprotected coastline behind the dunes has accelerated dramatically. Human activity is increasingly being blamed.

Take Hemsby, a holiday village down the road from Great Yarmouth. Drive beyond the boarded-up pub, slot-machine arcades and holiday chalets and you come to a line of tall sand dunes, called the Marram Hills, that protect the low-lying village and a large area behind it from the sea.

Here, Halcrow was out again, estimating a “coastline retreat of up to 2 metres per year”. Pat Gowen, a retired biologist at the University of East Anglia, knows different. He owned a holiday home in these dunes until 1988, when storms ate away the front of the dune and toppled it into the sea.

Today, standing at the spot once occupied by his bungalow, Gowen is close to low tide, 40 metres seaward of the last of the surviving dune. “We have lost 120 metres of dunes and 53 bungalows here in the past 15 years,” he says. Until the late 1970s, this dune system was advancing towards the sea. But it may soon all be gone. “One big tide could break through,” says Gowen. “It would flood right back through the valley.”

What has gone wrong along this coast? Is this just natural erosion, or something more? The vital new element, says John Pethick, a geomorphologist at the Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, is a reduction in the sea’s supply of sediment to beaches. The balance between the amounts of sand and gravel washed onto and off the beaches determines whether the coastline retreats or advances. Back in the 1960s, says Pethick, “they put up defences around Cromer and down towards Happisburgh. But that arrested sand movement to beaches south of Happisburgh. Sandy beaches there that I remember playing on as a child are now just mud.”

More than 70 per cent of East Anglia’s beaches are losing sand, and with it the ability to absorb wave energy. The oscillation of millions of grains “can rapidly absorb the kinetic energy of even a big storm”, says Pethick. But the mud left behind absorbs far less energy, exposing cliffs, dunes and sea walls to an ever greater battering.

The balance of sediment between the beaches and offshore may also have been upset by offshore dredging. The seabed naturally accumulates sand and fills up bumps and hollows with material from the coast. By lowering the seabed, dredging tends to increase not just the amount of sediment that is dragged offshore, but also the shoreline’s exposure to waves.

Marine dredging is a fast-growing business off the coast of Britain. In 1995, dredgers removed more than 26 million tonnes of sand and gravel from Britain’s coastal seabed. More than 10 million tonnes were dredged off East Anglia, largely from sand banks between 5 and 20 kilometres off Great Yarmouth. Most of this material goes to make concrete for the road-building and construction industries. But some, ironically, is for replenishing British beaches. And about half the East Anglian sand is exported, mostly to the Netherlands. Schiphol airport near Amsterdam was constructed from Norfolk aggregate. Gowen argues that the sudden acceleration of erosion witnessed since 1983 coincides precisely with the expansion of dredging off Great Yarmouth.

In theory, dredging is strictly controlled. The Crown Estate, as both landlord and planning authority of Britain’s foreshore, commissions hydrological and sediment modelling studies to justify its claim that individual dredging proposals will not damage the shoreline. The studies, paid for by the dredging companies, are carried out by H R Wallingford, a privatised hydrology consulting company. “If the models suggest an effect then the application is turned down,” says Tony Murray, head of marine offshore estates at the Crown Estate.

 

Inexact science

Alan Brampton, who carries out the studies at H R Wallingford, says that he is engaged in “an inexact science. Sediment transport is very difficult to model.”

But he argues that conservative assumptions in the models should ensure that no major damage is done. Murray now admits that these studies of individual dredging proposals may not be enough, however. “There is concern about a possible cumulative effect of lots of dredging licences. We do have research looking into that.” The main research effort on this coastline is the Sediment Transport Study for the Southern North Sea, which has yet to do more than review old Wallingford data.

“Everybody is shooting from the hip. There is no evidence either way,” says North Norfolk district council’s technical services officer, Peter Lawton. Knowledge has improved very little since the House of Commons environment committee report of 1992. At that time the committee complained: “We were concerned to find that the whole area of the impact of marine aggregate extraction on the coastal zone is under-researched and based on premises years out of date.”

Halcrow, in its 1996 shoreline management plan, commented: “Whilst it is known that sediment exchange occurs between the shoreline and the offshore areas, it is not clear how, and more importantly where, this occurs.” It warned that “any changes to [offshore] banks must be considered with extreme caution. Of considerable local concern is the issue of dredging from these banks and studies should establish the links between these activities and coastal processes.”

What can be done? Conventional sea walls are extremely expensive, at more than £1000 per metre. They also cause damage elsewhere by restricting the supply of sediment. The latest effort to plug that gap in Norfolk’s defences is building offshore “reefs” to soak up wave energy. At Sea Palling, where seven people died in the 1953 floods, the EA is building five rock reefs, while pumping sand from offshore to replenish the beach. But Pethick says: “My worry is that the reefs will break the back of the Norfolk coast. They trap sediment washing down from the north, so beyond them erosion will increase. There could be a huge catastrophe one day, with the sea invading the Norfolk Broads.”

Pethick espouses “soft engineering” for all but the most indispensable bits of coastline. This plan would allow cliffs, which provide a lot of sediment for a small amount of land lost, to erode, in the hope that the sediment will bolster dunes and beaches elsewhere that can protect large areas of low-lying land. “Managed retreat”, in the jargon, is now intended policy for several sections of the East Anglian coastline, including five stretches between Sheringham and Lowestoft. The locals are unimpressed. What they mostly see, they say, is unmanaged retreat.

This winter, they will be holding their breath whenever winds come from the north at Salthouse, a line of houses below sea level sitting right behind a large shingle bank. Beyond the bank, there is nothing but sea all the way to the North Pole. Every year the sea washes away more pebbles, while engineers from the EA bulldoze what remains back up to create an ever narrower bank.

“There is not enough material to get the banks back to their normal profile,” says Steve Hayman, one of the agency’s engineers, “and we can’t justify the expenditure of shipping in more shingle.” Last February, the sea briefly breached the shore, creating a 200-metre gap in the bank. Local flood warden and parish council chairman Ivan Large says that “the banks won’t stand up to another storm like last winter’s”.

Gowen agrees. “I don’t see that Salthouse has a future. Before long, perhaps this winter, the sea is going to come through here permanently. We are no longer just talking about losing isolated clifftop houses. Whole villages are going to go. It’ll be Hallsands all over again.”

New Scientist Default Image

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220612-400-crumbling-away-is-dredging-the-villain-in-the-drama-of-britains-eroding-coasts/

20 Comments
  1. Roy Andrews permalink
    April 30, 2023 6:43 pm

    Not for the first time either…and this one long before Climate Change could be blamed: https://www.devonlive.com/news/plymouths-scandalous-secret-led-destruction-7100072

  2. Harry Passfield permalink
    April 30, 2023 6:49 pm

    It seems that the lack of geomorphologist’s modelling capability is trumped by the climatologist’s (cough) expensive models. I would rather believe it was dredging that caused coastal erosion than (fairly recent) ‘climate change’ (as if).

  3. bobn permalink
    April 30, 2023 7:53 pm

    Perhaps all those old wind turbine blades could be deposited to form reefs and coastal sea walls. A good use for old rubbish.

  4. The Informed Consumer permalink
    April 30, 2023 8:20 pm

    I hate to say this, but George Monbiot, he of the hysterical climate change Guardian, has been saying similar things about dredging rivers rather than leaving them to their natural course.

    His claim is that a naturally meandering river slows down water flows rather than an artificially straightened and dredged river allowing floodwater to spill down it entirely unopposed.

    • Thomas Carr permalink
      May 1, 2023 12:33 am

      Monbiot was almost wrong again as the farmers whose land was flooded by a failure to de-silt the river Parrett in Somerset will attest. The Environment Agency were taken to task on this one. That’s the Govt body who ,when it comes to flood mitigation, distinguish between de-silting and dredging. The difference is that de-silting restores the original cross section of the watercourse. Dredging enlarges it.
      In that sense Monbiot is right if drainage is not the issue.
      Editor’s notes 1. Hallsands is nowhere near Devonport.
      2. Marine aggregates are lifted a long way out from Gt. Yarmouth
      – only ships’ superstructure is visible from the beach.
      3. Foreshore accretion at Kessingland has moved the shoreline
      eastwards by at least 200M.
      4.Dunwich was lost to the North Sea long before ‘global warming’
      or marine dredging for aggregates.

      • The Informed Consumer permalink
        May 1, 2023 1:09 am

        The Moonbat articles I read didn’t mention global warming at all. They dealt with the general principle of dredging, not particular instances.

        I’m happy to accept that he didn’t mention de-silting, I can’t remember specifics other than dredging is often associated with the redirection of a watercourse. Farmers are often culprits in order to irrigate, or expand land use.

        I’m no Moonbat fan but I’m not inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      • The Informed Consumer permalink
        May 1, 2023 1:18 am

        BTW. The Moonbat articles I read were probably over 10 years ago and likely written some years earlier. A bit before the hysteria over climate change took hold.

        I like some of his ideas on rewilding, but having wolves and Lynx(?) roaming across Scotland to deal with the overpopulation of deer are a bit extreme when humans can cull and eat them anyway.

        Of late though, the guy has just gone climate dooolally.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        May 1, 2023 9:55 am

        @TIC
        The overpopulation of deer is due in part to a lack of culling by humans. The animal rights townies protest everytime a cull is proposed and object to Deer Stalking. I was a Ponyman on a Perthshire Deer Stalking estate in the 1960s and 70s as a summer job. Unless there was an Arab Sheik paying good money the policy was to remove the weak, old and infirm. Any wounded deer were followed and killed as soon as possible and neighbouring estates notified, I can only remember one incident when a stag wasn’t killed until a couple of days after wounding much to the releif of all concerned.
        About 120 Red Deer stags were culled every year and the carcasses sold to a game dealer in Perth and exported to Germany. A surprising number had suffered from broken or cracked ribs and all the skins had been damaged and scarred by Blowfly maggots and were no use for tanning, something that is never mentioned in the context of wild and free. All of which brought an income into an area which would be dependant on sheep otherwise. Sheep which had replaced people just over 100 years before.
        Wolves and Lynx would find domesticated animals much easier targets, as the wolves spreading across Central France are doing

      • Roy Hartwell permalink
        May 4, 2023 6:47 pm

        Although Hallsands is a long way from Devonport, large-scale dredging WAS carried out off Hallsands as part of the construction of the Devonport facilities! The dredging began in the spring of 1897 and during the next four years some 660,000 tonnes of material were removed. This caused the shingle beach protecting the village to be eroded away and a vicious south-westerley storm swept the village away.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      May 1, 2023 9:19 am

      But rivers meander on flood plains i.e. where there is very little gradient. That’s why they meander. Such areas are prone to flood because they are flat. I’m not sure the speed of the water is the key so much as the volume.

    • gezza1298 permalink
      May 1, 2023 12:18 pm

      I doubt Monbiot has ever been right about anything bar his name. The problem with river management is a failure to consider the whole watercourse when making upstream changes. A few years back parts of the Thames flooded that hadn’t before and the blame was pointing to a channel that had been built that speeded up the flow past one section until it was backed up by a section lower down. Flood meadows exist for a reason which is to absorb the extra volume that arises in peak times. Remove them without considering if the area downstream can cope with the increased volume can cause flooding. Dredging is not necessarily wrong but if it is done without full thought it can be. De-silting should be carried out regularly or there will be more flooding at lower levels of flow.

  5. Harry Passfield permalink
    April 30, 2023 9:18 pm

    One word for Monbiot: Indus.

    • The Informed Consumer permalink
      April 30, 2023 9:36 pm

      Read some of his more sane mutterings and there is a case to be made. The old stopped clock syndrome.

  6. Phoenix44 permalink
    May 1, 2023 9:20 am

    But rivers meander on flood plains i.e. where there is very little gradient. That’s why they meander. Such areas are prone to flood because they are flat. I’m not sure the speed of the water is the key so much as the volume.

    • Vernon E permalink
      May 1, 2023 3:01 pm

      P44: But eventually the water has to make its way to the sea. Concerning the erosion I don’t understand why we are one of the only countries in the world that hasn’t adopted tetrapods for sea defence. They work everywhere else.

  7. lloyd Jones permalink
    May 1, 2023 11:54 am

    And this..https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-towns-scandalous-secret-led-27151742 much the same
    lloyd

  8. May 1, 2023 12:32 pm

    The same thing has happened to the South Wales beaches in my lifetime, from Barry Island to the Gower Peninsula. ‘Scientific’ surveys are carried out by British Dredging in the Bristol Channel, which have assured politicians that there has been no effect. I am 77 and have seen 70 years of sand loss along ‘my’ coastline. Letters have been published, it has been highlighted in some of my books – but politicians are the same the world over – either venal or stupid – usually both.

  9. lloyd Jones permalink
    May 1, 2023 1:40 pm

    Paul, the new scientist article was interesting, because they have changed it to climate change of late…some irony there….
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2202190-some-uk-coastal-communities-may-have-to-move-because-of-climate-change/
    lloyd

  10. rms permalink
    May 2, 2023 9:36 am

    The “Shore Protection Manual” has been around for decades. Used in the “Coastal Engineering” class I took at university in 1975. Find it, including newer versions, via an internet search which I hope and assume people in the business of protecting the Norfolk coast are able to do.

Comments are closed.