Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Has anyone on here, aside from me, actually read and understood the Royal Haskoning EIA report, or even just the non-technical summary? Cost is not the only, and in discussion not even the main, advantage of the proposed sourcing.
Button likes this
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Just say a yes or no Mr Wiggins please.There is no need to read any report on this matter do you agree with the taking of sand off a war grave or like us you do not? No report can do that .it is how one feels about it.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Just read the EIA Mr Vic.
The MMO will make the decision on whether to grant a license or not and I'll be happy to accept their decision.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
You still not saying Yes or NO you are going on A decision of a group not your own feelings or the local feelings,Do you as a person agree with taking sand from a war grave YES OR NO.All you are doing is passing the buck.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I waded through it three times, very clever of DHB to commission a very expensive and very clever business consultancy. The report used words that most people have never heard of and referred to groups they had consulted with. They included the Kent Wildlife trust who were consulted of course but are mounting a campaign against the dredging. If I had the money I would pay for another business consultancy to give me the result I wanted.
Guest 1266 and Guest 649 like this
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Not so Mr Vic. This is not about feelings, particularly not about my feelings. I will be comfortable with the decision that the MMO reach on the basis of the evidence.
Jan Higgins and Button like this
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
As I said passing the buck why can you not gave a YES OR A NO , now can you talk about the taking away of war graves and homes of wild life without feeling .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I do love the buzzwords/phrases in the report that are designed to confuse us plebs.
Coriolis force.
Morphology.
Bathymetric surveys.
Chart Datum.
I wonder if Mr Waggott knows what they mean.
Guest 649 likes this
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,040
Mr Vic: please see Mr Wiggins' post 53. In my view what we need is for the empowered agency (MMO in this case) to make a decision that takes into account all the factors that should be, disregards all the factors that should not be, and is not so repugnant that no sane person could come up with it. What could be more reasonable than that?
Mr Mcsweeney1: to that end, it is sufficient that the empowered agency understands the submissions, for and against, that are before it.
Jan Higgins and Paul M like this
(Not my real name.)
Guest 1266- Registered: 8 May 2014
- Posts: 381
It seems to me that Mr Wiggins is happy for the dredging to go ahead regardless of how the community feels. So I am asking myself what is the point of his position which was trumpted by the Peoples Port as a voice for the community of Dover. In reality its just a meaningless title which wont stop DHB pillaging every local asset for their own use.
Guest 649 and Guest 1831 like this
Jack of Hearts
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
On this Mr Heart I am fully in agreement with you ,Mr Wiggins got that post to get him and keep him on the ,D.H.B.side.
The sands are a war grave and must be saved .
As I have said I have no postion now to fight this one at the age of 74 and not on any council like years ago ,what it needs is the press to take it on and our own M.P. But I cannot see that happing.
Guest 1792 and Guest 1266 like this
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
The D.H.B.will be upset that Mr Wiggins talked to the forum in the first place.they do not like anyone from their office talking to the press or any outside body about what they are going to do. Unless it comes from their own press officer. So he might not
come back on this one any more.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,835
Vic, you certainly seem to have adverse feelings towards Neil, in your eyes he can do nothing right. I am sure he has said nothing that will upset DHB unlike several of us on here but that assumes they even bother reading anything posted on this relatively small forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
They do log into it most days,take my word on that.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I think the consultants hired Stanley Unwin to word the answers, the last sentence in this answer was all that was needed.
Q2: In view of your confidence in the proposed dredging of the Goodwin
Sands, would you agree to a clause in your extraction licence to the effect
that if any coastal impact (e.g. erosion, flooding etc.) arises along the
coast from Kingsdown to Sandwich Bay in the next 15 years you (Port of
Dover) will meet the costs of additional coastal regeneration and
compensate homeowners and the local authorities for any
distress/damage? - Esme Chilton
A: Section 6 of the ES sets out the existing environment for hydrodynamic
processes (i.e. wave and tides) and sedimentary processes (i.e. erosion and
accretion) and assesses the potential changes to the physical environment and any
secondary impacts resulting from this, such as any subsequent erosion or flooding
Open Meeting: Q&A Report PB2107/R20160804/303686/Lond
Final Report - 3 - 5 August 2016
at the coast. The ES concluded that there would be a ‘negligible magnitude of
effects’ predicted to result from the proposed scheme on coastal processes and
hydrodynamics and that mitigation measures were not required. Of particular not to
this question, the effect on waves following the dredging operation, which could
change the processes of sediment transport, both locally and towards the east Kent
coast, was assessed and concluded that the changes would be negligible, i.e. within
the range of natural variation.
The Marine Management organisation (MMO) and statutory advisors will assess the
evidence provided within the ES, including whether the impacts are acceptable, the
appropriate mitigation measures are in place and if any monitoring is required. The
MMO will only grant Port of Dover permission to dredge if they conclude that it is
safe to do so. As long as the Port complies with the licence conditions we cannot be
liable.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
They are not even talking about them being a war grave on the sands.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I posted originally to correct a misunderstanding about how much time the dredger will be in the area actually dredging if a license is granted by the MMO - I was trying to be helpful to posters on this forum. I was asked, to disclose what my personal opinion was and answered that as well.
Paul M, Jan Higgins and Brian Dixon like this
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
I am afraid that mr vic has a bee in his bonnet neil
Paul M and Jan Higgins like this
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,024
Neil is a very nice person,and I think he works hard for Dover.Still if Isaid that Vic would disagree.Believe it or not Im quite good at summing people up.I find Neil very pleasant .and I enjoy his postings.
Jan Higgins likes this
Guest 1266- Registered: 8 May 2014
- Posts: 381
Mr Wiggins you have stated that you are happy to accept whatever decision is granted. Sitting on a fence is hardly representing and fighting for a community. So I am still confused of the purpose of your position at DHB.
Guest 1831 and Guest 649 like this
Jack of Hearts