Tendring Population Falls Government Orders Plan For New Homes

2011 census shows Tendring had a population of 138,000 yet 2001 census 138,800 a fall of 800 people or 0.6%.


Here is a map of Tendring courtesy of Google.


The main towns are on the coast or along rivers.  This is where developers are applying to build new homes.

The government told Tendring District council to plan for 12,000 new homes or was it 10,000 or 8,000.  We might expect at least 2 people per home so the government is requiring an increase in Tendring’s population of up to 24,000 – a 17% increase on the 2011 census.  Will anyone actually live in these homes if they are built?

Why if population fell between 2001 and 2011 census according to Office for Nation Statistics.  This report shows other areas in increase in population of over 10% during the same 10 years the population of Tendring fell.

Why did Tendring’s population fall?

The short answer is I don’t know, but this Tendring Distring Council report offers some clues. On page 106 (106!!) of this report states there are higher than average rates of

  • unemployment
  • older people living in the region

Is the aim to turn Tendring into one giant care home?  Where the main job opportunities are to commute out of Tendring or work in a care home?

If thousands of new homes have to be built wouldn’t it make more sense to build new towns closer to Colchester and Ipswich, rather than cram new homes into existing sea side towns?

Here is how Environment Agency see our coast in 2105,  in short anything not marked green indicates EA plan to knock down sea defenses.  Roughly half of Tendring’s coastline will be abandoned 

  • St Osyth to Jaywick
  • Holland Haven to Frinton
  • The Naze


Environment Agency Plan For Tendring Coastline By 2105

Environment Agency Plan For Tendring Coastline By 2105


It is really bizarre one part of government is telling Tendring to plan for new homes at the same time another part of government is planning to let parts of Tendring be flooded by the sea.

Posted in EA, Local, SMP, Tendring | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Beach For Clacton – Naze And Seawick Falling Into Sea

Upgrade of groynes and beach at Clacton and Holland-on-Sea continues.  Nothing is done to stop sea eroding beach, sea wall and cliffs at Naze and Seawick


New groynes and recharged beach at Clacton near pier


Photo from earlier year shows how much sand had dropped – about 20 feet


In the distance you can see a reef that has been built out to sea, for boats to shelter behind

Presumably this touches the bottom

So the groynes could have been built much further out



The new beach is still much smaller than south of the pier



The previous policy of putting rocks against wall and letting groynes fall to pieces didn’t work.

Why was nothing done to change this policy for about 15 years?

On the other hand if previous policy did work why was it changed?


Seawick- St Osyth

 In October 2013 the path just south of the groynes looked like this

Looking north


Looking south

 In both photos can clearly see properties behind the sea wall 6Oct2013_stOysthPathLookingSouth

In 2015 path looks like this

It is clear the sea has eroded almost all the sand and mud from in front of the sea wall

And once this has gone the sea will start eroding the sea wall

Eventually there will be a hole in the sea wall and the properties and caravans will be flooded.


This is not guess work, there is the experience from Holland-on-Sea to go by

Sea wall fails


Digger falls through promenade as sea has washed away material from underneath promenade,  greatly reducing the promenade’s strength.



Another failure at Seawick

This reef is covered by seaweed, clearly showing it is covered by the sea at high tide – which allows the sea to wash sand on beach away



which it has, compare the level of this beach


with the level just the other side of the groyne to north


not only is there a better beach there is a bank of dry sand in front of the wall, protecting it from the destructive effect of the sea.

This beach is only a few yards from the one where there is a reef and the sand has been washed away.

So the Environment Agency and TDC know exactly how to protect the beach and sea wall, because they’ve done it here.


 In October 2013 the foundations of ramp at Seawick was being eroded away



Environment Agency solution is to pile rocks against ramp

This is the solution which didn’t work and has been abandoned a few miles to the north in Clacton and Holland on Sea

I guess the reason the stones are in wire mesh is someone is worried about them being washed away!


At The Naze

Mean while the Naze continues to fall into the sea and the only remedy is to put up a fence!


A view from the beach – Jun 2015 – note the slabs on the sea wall


January 2013 view from the beach, where are the slabs?


It’s not the slabs are behind the vegetation

The slabs and sea wall are at least 10 yards from the cliff



It looks like the sea will soon break through the sea wall here.

There is a sewage works at the Naze when the sea breaks through what will happen to sewage works?

EA solution is to ‘protect’ the sewage works.

In other words they’re going to allow the sea to destroy the existing sea defenses,
and the build new defenses.




 The sea and rain continue to erode all of  the Nazenaze_erosion

The solution is known and has already been implemented in Tendring at Clacton, Holland Frinton and Walton


Naze Cliffs Fall Into Sea Even Though It’s Known How To Stop It


1  Build Groynes

2  Sculpt the cliffs so there is not a sheet vertical drop

3  Drain the cliffs.


It is a strange that at a time when one part of government has ordered Tendring to plan for 10,000 new homes another government agency is planning for lots of Tendring coastline to fall into the sea.

Posted in Beaches, Breakwaters, Groynes, Sea Level | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nasa Makes False Claims About Sea Level Rise

Nasa recently announced likely 900cm rise in sea levels by 2100 based on work by Colorado University.  News media uncritically broadcast this around world.

 The Nasa press release is here


It quotes Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and lead of the Sea Level Change Team.

The front page of Sea Level team at Coloradu U (sealevel.colorado.edu/) has the following two graphs.

This shows sea levels as measured by satellites since 1993.  The fact someone has fitted a straight line to the graph shows they think the rate of sea level rise is constant, more or less.


You might think there is a bit of an uptick in the last few months, but the second graph makes it clear this is due to the current El Nino.  The graph above shows sea levels above the trend line in 1998, a big El Nino year.


This page shows tide gauge measurements


Which I’ve copied below

Tide Gauge Estimates of Mean Sea Level Rise

Estimates of global sea level rise which were derived from tide gauge records are found in the table below. Most of the investigators reported that the estimated values were sensitive to the choice of record length and the tide gauges selected. This sensitivity coupled with different computational techniques and modeling would certainly explain some of the differences shown below.


Sea Level Rise (mm/yr)

Error (mm/yr) Data Used (years) # of Tide Gauges References
2.8 ±0.8 1993-2009 ~200 Church & White (2011)
1.7 ±0.2 1900-2009 >38 since 1900 Church & White (2011)
1.9 ±0.4 1961-2009 >190 since 1960 Church & White (2011)
1.43 ±0.14 1881-1980 152 Barnett (1984)
2.27 ±0.23 1930-1980 152 Barnett (1984)
1.2 ±0.3 1880-1982 130 Gornitz and Lebedeff (1987)
2.4 ±0.9 1920-1970 40 Peltier and Tushingham (1989)
1.75 ±0.13 1900-1979 84 Trupin and Wahr (1990)
1.7 ±0.5 N/A N/A Nakiboglu and Lambeck (1991)
1.8 ±0.1 1880-1980 21 Douglas (1991)
1.62 ±0.38 1807-1988 213 Unal and Ghil (1995)


It is clear satellites are measuring a greater rate of sea level rise than tide gauges.

Two reasons for this are

  1. They are not measuring the same thing, tide gauges measure sea levels by land while satellites attempt to measure sea levels across the whole ocean.
  2. Satellites have only measured sea levels for the last 23 years or so. The 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption depressed sea levels around the world for a year or two.  The 1998 El Nino boosted sea levels around the world.  So satellites caught the rebound from the Pinatubo depression and the 1998 El Nino which together gave a higher rate of sea level rise, but only for a short while.

Permanent Service for Mean Sea Levels holds data for tide gauges around the world.

I have used PSMSL data to analyse sea levels around UK

and around the world.

Whilst I mean be wrong my results from around UK agree closely with those published by Prof Philip Woodworth of Proudman of UK’s Proudman Oceanographic Lab.


The Past And The Future

A rise of 3.3mm/year for 23 years is 7.59cm, a bit less than 3½ inches.

And on the basis of this we are supposed to believe there will be 90cm (around 3 feet) rise by 2100 – in 85 years.

In other words the rate of sea level rise, which according to satellites has been roughly constant for 23 years at 3.3mm/year, is going to jump to more than 10 mm/year.


I started blogging in 2011 because UK Environment Agency wanted to knock down a sea wall about 1/2 mile from my house.  Their ‘logic’ was

  1. the rate of sea level rise is going to increase exponentially
  2. this means it will be too expensive to maintain sea defenses
  3. so the best thing to do is knock them down now

This graph has been on front page of JeremyShiers.com since 2011.  It shows

  • data PSMSL hold for Felixstowe,
  • the trendline,
  • and the claimed future rate of sea level rise.



David Middleton, writing at WattsUpWithThat.com, has a lengthier and more sophisticated analysis of Nasa’s  false claims from which I’ve shamelessly copied the following 2 graphs.

This is similar to the graph of sea levels at Felixstowe – do you believe the projections?


The claim is sea levels will raise at over 10mm/year for next 85 years.

Sea levels did rise at about this rate after the last ice age, but nothing like it for the last 6000 years.


Measurement Errors

Any measurement will have an error, or uncertainty.

What are the errors for satellite sea level measurements?

In 2013 Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard published the following 2 images in a post titled

Shock News Satellite Sea Level Error Is 100% Of The Trend.

 screenhunter_198-apr-12-21-41 screenhunter_1387-oct-11-10-33

Both images came from Colorado University.

Whilst the link for sea levels still works (sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-level-trends).  The link for measurement error does not.  I wonder why. (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/sl_err_sm.jpg)


Government Bodies Wouldn’t Release False Information?

We’ve been here before.

In April 2012 the Envisat, the European satellite measuring sea levels, was shut down.

It had been showing rates of sea level rise much lower than other satellites.  Within a day or two Envisat records had been adjusted to bring them into line with other satellites.

By chance I had saved Envisat data just before the records were changed so I was able to do a comparison Sea Levels Still Rising And Envisat Records Altered To Show This/

Amusingly who ever made the changes bungled.  In making Envisat agree with other satellites overall they destroyed the existing agreement during the overlapping periods when 2 or more satellites had been operational.


Why Are They Doing This

 The short answer is I don’t know.

There is a big climate change conference scheduled for later in 2015 in Paris.

It seems we are likely to see an increasing number of wild claims prior to this in order to justify whatever action is deemed necessary despite what actual data says.

As a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.


Media Uncritically Repeats False Claims

On Friday 28 August around 19:45 in UK Sky news featured the Nasa report.

For around 5 minutes they uncritically interviewed a single expert who was allowed to make what ever claims he felt like unchallenged.


Normally 2 people with opposing views are lined up so each can say the other is wrong – and no conclusion is reached.

There was a time when reporters actually investigated themselves finding the facts to justify their stories.

I guess alarm sells and ‘everything is all right’ doesn’t.



Posted in Climate Change, Sea Level | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Saltmarsh Erosion At Quay Lane – Are Ducks Responsible?

Rising sea levels are eroding saltmarsh claim EA(Environment Agency) and NE(Natural England). Here is one place where something else is doing it.

At the north end of Quay Lane, Kirby le Soken there is a tidal pool protected by the Quay.  In the middle of this pool is a saltmarsh island where something has created a hole at one end.



It seems impossible for this hole to have been caused by rising sea levels.

Here is another one, by the shore.




I don’t know what caused this hole but ducks regularly congregate here.



and often sunbathe



It certainly seems possible they are causing these holes





Why Should Anyone Care About Saltmarsh Erosion?

DEFRA has tasked EA with creating 100 hectares of new saltmarsh every year by flooding land.

This was the reason for EA’s plan to knock a hole in the sea wall near Peters Point and why they have actually knocked a hole in the seawall at Rigdons.

The rational is rising sea levels are eroding saltmarsh, these posts give more detail.

What is Saltmarsh?

Holland Haven Sea Wall – Will Tendring District Council Let The Sea Destroy It?

Were Early Saltmarsh Surveys Wrong?

Saltmarsh is regarded as important as it provides

  • a place for young fish to develop
  • a habitat for migrating birds

In this video EA are quoted as answering the question “Do crabs cause saltmarsh erosion?”

It wouldn’t be feasible to carry out detailed enough study to assess the sole affect
of crabs. while other factors are considered, including crab burrowing, sea level rise
remains as it’s focus as its responsibility is to respond to man made activities.


In February 2014 there was an Information Tribunal hearing with me on one side and EA and the Information Commissioner on the other.  The hearing was over EA’s answers (or lack of them) to various FOI requests I had made about EA’s policy of attempting to create saltmarsh in Essex and South Suffolk.

EA did not attend the hearing to be cross examined but Mark Johnson, Area Coastal Manager for East Area of Anglian Region of Environment Agency, gave written answers to my written questions.

I explained that this statement was made in response to a request from a BBC journalist.  It is expected practice that such responses to media will need to be responded to in a matter of a few hours.  We feel that this statement is perfectly reasonable and stand by it.  The word ‘feasible’ is subjective and what is feasible to one person may not be feasible to another.

Am I alone in thinking Mark is really saying we just said the first thing that came into our head?

Anyway he went on.

To assist Dr Shiers, we sought advice from Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Unit (part of Suffolk County Council).  They paid for independent advice on crabs and their contribution to erosion in Deben estuary.  They advised us that the independent consultant concluded that there were a number of factors contributing to saltmarsh erosion and that burrowing crabs were not a significant factor.  We referred Dr Shiers to the relevant Unit to obtain a copy of the report.

Strange.  I had previously made an FOI request to Suffolk Council and they replied they held no information about this.  Perhaps I should try again.

If you watch the video you may decide crab burrowing does play a part in saltmarsh erosion.

But what about the migrating birds?  In Hamford  Water thousands come every year to live and feed.  Are we really to believe they have no effect on the saltmarsh?

Perhaps not.  Natural England conducted a survey of saltmarsh between 1997 and 1998.  For Hamford Water they found (table 9, page 66 of Essex Coastal SSSIs: Assessment of Changes in Extent of Saltmarsh Over the Period 1997 to 2008 VOLUME 1 )

1997    694.82 hectares of saltmarsh

2008   698.13 hectares of saltmarsh.

So there’s no need to knock down sea walls and flood farm land to try and recreate saltmarsh. 

It’s growing back all by itself!

Posted in Climate Change, Coastal Squeeze, EA, Salt Marsh Erosion | Leave a comment

New Holland Haven Groynes Covered By Super High Tide

High tide at Holland on 22 March 2015 was 4.9m over ½ meter higher than normal and about level predicted in 100 years time. The new groynes were completely covered.


The locations in Tendring where the sea covers the groynes at high tide are those were the sea has washed away the sand the most. The most that is apart from the Naze and south of Seawick where there aren’t any groynes at all!

So either EA are not expecting that much sea level rise, or they don’t expect the groynes to keep the beach and seawall safe for 100 years.



There is a green buoy at the end of most groynes



But not this one, which would clearly be dangerous in summer.



So while it’s great there’s now a beach.  It looks like the groynes aren’t high enough.

Posted in Beaches, Groynes | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Holland Haven – New Groynes New Beach And A Surprise

The new beach at Holland Haven is open now new groynes have been built. I went to have a look and found a surprise. Sea level rise in next 100 years?


There’s now a beach at Holland Haven!



 With plenty of dry sand in front of the sea wall.




And the sand almost reaches the prom – who needs steps?




But the groynes don’t reach the sea wall,  I counted a gap of 15 paces.




There are 15 more paces to the high water mark and 59 to the sea at round about low tide.
So 89 paces in all.  Noticeably more than the 55 paces I found with old groynes in April 2012.  Still a bit less than 90-100 paces at Walton and quite a bit less than the 120 paces at Frinton.

The groynes are spaced about 200 meters apart which leads to the sea coming a significant distance closer to the sea wall in the middle of the groynes.



Round about low tide some of the shorter northern branch of the Y was in the sea




But almost all the longer southern branch was out of the sea



 It seemed to me the groynes might be covered by the sea at high water so I went back close to high tide on 9 March 2015 when high tide was estimated to be 4.3meters.

 And it looks like I was wrong as the groynes are still clearly out of the sea.




But not nearly as much as the large rock groyne at Walton (groyne 84).



High tide on 21 March is estimated to be 4.9meters – about 2 feet higher than on 9 March,  which I guess will cover the groynes.  If I’m free I’ll go back and take more photos, perhaps someone else can take photos as well just in case I’m not free.

Photos of super tide on 22 March covering groynes here.

So What’s The Surprise?

The new groynes at Holland are largely paid for my Environment Agency.

The groynes and new beach are supposed to last for 100 years.

EA follow DEFRA’s guidance of sea level rise for the next century which indicates sea levels are due to rise by between 0.37 and 0.53 meters (14 to 21 inches). 

So the highest high tides could be 4 feet higher than those shown in pictures I took on 9 March 2015, which would clearly cover the groynes.

The locations in Tendring where the sea covered the groynes at high tide are those were the sea has washed away the sand the most. The most that is apart from the Naze and south of Seawick where there aren’t any groynes at all!

So either EA are not expecting that much sea level rise, or they don’t expect the groynes to keep the beach and seawall safe for 100 years.

Posted in Beaches, Groynes, Sea Level | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

EA Say Sea Levels Risen Less Than Expected

David Evans emailed to point out wikipedia Thames Barrier entry quotes EA saying Environment Agency responded that it does not plan to replace the Thames Barrier before 2070, as the barrier was designed with an allowance for sea level rise of 8 mm per year until 2030, which has not been realised in the intervening years.

The Thames Barrier was opened in 1982,  48 years before 2030.  Which suggests the barrier was built to cope with a rise in sea level from 1982 of  48 × 8 = 484 mm.

There are 88 years between 1982 and 2070 which suggests EA now expects an average rise of no more than 5.5 mm/year.

This is curious as rate of sea level rise as measured by tide gauges at nearby location are

Southend 1.2  ±  0.2 mm/year
Sheerness 1.67 ±  0.04 mm/year
Tilbury 1.7  ±   0.6 mm/year

An article in Telegraph on 18 Feb 2014 quotes Dick Tappin, an engineer who helped design in the barrier in 1970s and who has worked on it ever since, the barrier will work into 22th century.

If the barrier lasted until 2200,  218 years from when it opened,  this would suggest an average rate of sea level rise of 2.2 mm/year, still more than what is measured by tide gauges.

Posted in EA, Sea Level | Leave a comment

No Correlation CO2 & Temperature From 2004-14 & 1960-76

Lack of correlation disproves causation. Correlation only suggests it. Lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature shows CO2 does not cause rising temperatures.

Correlation measures how well 2 quantities are linked.

A correlation

  • of around 1 indicates things move together
  • of  around 0 indicates things are not linked
  • of around -1 indicates things move in opposite direction

It is very important to remember whilst 2 quantities may have a correlation close to 1, this may arise by coincidence.  Hence the mantra

Correlation is not causation

Which students are encouraged to repeat when they say their prayers.

But perhaps not climate scientists.

Using HADCRUT4 temperature anomalies and CO2 levels from Mauna Loa there are 2 periods between 1960 and 2014 where CO2 levels are not correlated with temperature anomalies and one where CO2 levels and temperature anomalies are reasonably well correlated.

 So if CO2 levels cause rising temperatures did someone switch this off from 1960 to 1976 and again from 2004 to 2014?


This graph of CO2 Levels and temperature anomalies illustrates this

  CO2 Level V Temperature

The three periods clearly have very different trends

Temperature Anomalies And Trends

However the plot of net change in CO2 from the same month the previous year appears to follow changes in temperature much more closely.

 Net Change CO2 V Temperature AnomalyThis was pointed out by Prof Murray Salby

 The following graph compares observed CO2 levels with those where the current months CO2 level, C, is calculated from

  • The current months temperature anomaly T
  • The CO2 level in the same month the previous year Cl
  • 2 numbers A and B

 using the formula

C = A + Cl + T x B

A = 1.22 ± 0.03

B = 1.66 ± 0.09


So the first year is used to provide the annual shape

Each year there is an increment of a constant 1.22 ppm

For each month in the year add 1.66 x that months temperature anomaly and the CO2 level for the same month in the previous year.


It seems to be to simple to be true and no iterative models or supercomputers

Until you remember CO2 levels show a more or less linear increase with each year and the shape within each year is roughly the same.


Observed And Calculated CO2 LevelsThe correlation between observed and calculated levels is 0.99971717

Correlation is not causation

But this method matches the entire period which is not true for CO2 drives temperature theory.

As Prof Murray Salby pointed out this method has a simple physical model

CO2 levels are the integral of past temperatures + annual constant increase

It is just about impossible (for me at any rate) to see how this can be true and simultaneously CO2 causing temperature rise

So I conclude rising CO2 levels do not cause temperature rise

And thus all the money being spent on renewable energy, and knocking down flood defences is being completely wasted.

Oh – it’s our money by the way.



Posted in Climate Change, CO2, Temperature | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

2ºC Warmer 5000 years Ago In Orkneys

Temperatures were 2ºC warmer 5000 years ago according to archaeological and geological evidence from Skara Brae in Orkneys, Scotland

Professor Ian Stewart presented the series Making Scotland’s Landscape, one program focused on historic climate.

I produced the following chart from 3 separate charts shown on the program, the original charts are shown lower down.

Temperature Scotland 4000BC to 1400AD

It is clear

  1. current temperatures are not unusual
  2. there have been a number of changes in temperature over the millenia

Here is the section which presents the archaeological and geological evidence temperatures were 2ºC higher around 3000BC and have cycled since then.

Here are the 3 individual charts I spliced together

 Temperatures Scotland 4000 to 1000BC

 Temperature Scotland 3000BC to 1000AD

For whatever reason the scale on this chart was different to the previous two, so I had to guess (err I mean estimate) rescaling to fit on one chart.

 Temperature Scotland Little Ice Age

It is interesting to compare the temperatures from Making Scotland’s Landscape with these 3 charts which come from page 202 of Working Group 1 of IPCC AR1, the first IPCC report issued in 1990.  Whilst they not exactly identical they show the same pattern of falling and rising temperatures and more or less the same times.

 IPCC AR1 Temperatures last 1000 years

 IPCC AR1 Temperatures since 10000 BC

 IPCC AR1 Temperature Last Million Years

It seems to me as these records show past temperatures being higher than at present

  1. If CO2 is responsible for higher temperatures then CO2 was higher in the past and this higher level could not be caused by humans.
  2. Some mechanism other than CO2 was reponsible for previous higher temperatures, so how do we know current warming is solely due to CO2, in fact how do we know CO2 makes any appreciable difference?
  3. As there has been cooling of several degrees in the past some mechanism must have caused this, how do we know it will not cause more cooling in the future?

Which ever way you look at it the past temperature record seems to show there is no reason to believe either

  • Human emissions of CO2 are solely responsible for current temperature
  • Temperatures will not fall at some time in the future.

If this is true all the measures being taken to avoid raising CO2 (and hence temperatures) are a waste of money, e.g.

  • Windfarms
  • Closing coal fire power stations
  • Burning wood from USA in UK power stations
  • Trying to stop using fossil fuels
  • Knocking down sea walls in face of rising sea levels

 What do you think?


Posted in Climate Change, CO2, Temperature | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2ºC Warmer 5000 years Ago In Orkneys

Naze Cliffs Fall Into Sea Even Though It’s Known How To Stop It

The Naze cliffs are crumbling into sea.  This is EA and so UK government policy. A few yards to south the cliffs have been stopped from falling into sea.

Here are cliffs near Naze Tower, the people on cliffs probably help the erosion.


At the north east end of Naze the part of path along sea wall has already been eroded away.


EA’s plan for how this area should look from 2055 to 2105 shows they plan to allow most of the eastern sea facing part of Naze to fall into sea.  And they plan to manage realign the seawall (ie knock down the sea wall) to the north and west (along Walton Channel).

In other words not only do Environment Agency plan for sea to wash the Naze away, they are going to actively speed up the process.


Here are the SMP colour codes. SMP stands for Shoreline Management Plan, how EA plan to ‘protect’ the coast until 2105.

smpPolicyColorCodeIf we zoom in on the Naze, for the plan up to 2025 we can see EA plan to manage realign the cliffs by the Naze Tower, and let most of the rest of sea facing cliffs fall into the sea, NAI or No Active Intervention.

This strikes me as insane.

The cliffs are supposed to be eroding at 1-2metres per year, so in a few years the sea will be able to attack the Naze Tower from the north.  So much for saving the Naze Tower.


From Clacton to the Naze, action has been taken to stop cliffs falling into the sea.

Three things are required.

  1. Scuplt the cliffs so they have a gentle slope and not a shear drop.
  2. Build groynes so a bank of dry sand accumulates in front of the cliffs which prevents the sea attacking the base of the cliffs.
  3. Install drains so water can run away


There is a notice by Crag Walk which explains how the sea attacks the base of the cliffs.


Apart from the people who like to climb on the cliffs, another problem are these holes




Which are almost certainly made by rabbits, who tend to hide during the day


but not always






There are layers of sand and clay in the cliffs. 

In the summer these dry out, when it rains the clay becomes slippery and sand layer tends to slide over the clay.


Scuplting and draining the cliffs helps to prevent this.

I remember in the 1960s there were cliff slides in Frinton, after the cliffs where sculpted to their current shape, the problem went away.

So lets look at the cliffs along Tendring coastline

Clacton south of pier


Clacton north of pier


Holland Haven


Frinton from near Pole Barn Lane looking south


Frinton from near Pole Barn Lane looking north


Naze below Sunny point, a few yards from Crag Walk


Groynes at Jaywick and Seawick, courtsey of Google.

Clearly showing a bank of dry sand protecting sea wall.


Groynes at Clacton south of pier, again a bank of dry sand in front of sea wall.


Groynes at Walton


 Groynes at Dovercourt/Harwich


But don’t build groynes like these at Holland Haven (actually they’re being replaced)



 Cliff drainage near Sunny Point, Naze


 Cliff drainage at Holland Haven


Just in case you have any doubt, this aerial picture from Google clearly shows how the cliff falls start immediately there are no groynes and cliffs have not been sculpted.



Returning to the north east part of Naze, it looks to me this is part of the area where EA said they would hold the line until 2025






I guess their idea of hold the line must be different to mine


Why is the Naze being allowed to fall into the sea?

I guess there are 2 main reasons

People want to be able to find fossils.


People want to be able to find fossils

What will happen to the houses on the Naze as it erodes away?

What will happen once the sea breaks into Backwaters (aka Hamford Water)?


The EA map shows the Naze protects this area of intertidal habitat.  So EA who have spent time and money attempting to increase salt marsh and intertidal habitat are simultaneously, by their neglect, threatening the very habitat they tried to protect.


On the bright side it will be quicker to get out to sea from the marina.

Is it really worth allowing this destruction just so people can find fossils?


The cost of Crag Walk was about £1.2 million for 110 million, very roughly £10,000/metre, curiously about the same cost as TDC have spent on defending coast elsewhere

The current repair and renovation to Holland and Clacton sea wall and groynes are budget at around £30million for around 5km or £6000/metre.

Very roughly there is about 1.5km of sea facing undefended cliff at the Naze so the cost might be in the region of £10-15 million.

Seems a lot until  you consider the cost of the Gunfleet Sands wind farm is given by Wikipedia as £300 million.


As I was writing gridwatch.templar.co.uk gave the TOTAL contribution of ALL UK windfarms as 2/3 of  one percent.


Windfarms produce no electricity when there is no wind. Although the maximum power Gunfleet Sands can produce is 172MW it is rated (optimistically) to be able to only deliver 35.4% of this  – around 60MW.  At a build cost of £300million this represents a cost of £5million/MW.

Here is a report of a gas electric power station which costs £300million and delivers 300MW, £1million/MW.  Five times better value.

And guess what it will produce power when the wind doesn’t blow.

And it will not have to be paid NOT to produce electricity when there is too much.

To get 300MW of electricity from Gunfleet Sands there would have to be 5 times as many windmills costing £1.5 billion.

Am I making the case that if government stopped wasting money on pointless pet projects there would be ample money for defending the Naze (and rest of UK coast).  There would also be more money for schools, NHS, defense.

But it’s worse.

The reason for building windfarms (at 5 times the expense of gas power stations) is so your electricity bills double.

I mean, to avoid emitting CO2 in order to stop global warming.  But not only have global temperatures stopped rising,  global temperaturs are actually FALLING.  Since 2000 according to the RSS satellite.

It’s kind of hard to believe in global warming when global temperatures are falling, or that is necessary to stop emitting CO2 as CO2 is causing global warming, when there is global cooling.


Let’s look at how EA spends money.

In  February 2014 John Redwood reported EA spent £540 million on staff but only £20 million on drainage.

EA Spend £593Million On Staff £20Million On Drainage – See more at: http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/ea-spend-593million-on-staff-20million-on-drainage-john-redwood/#sthash.fgbtrE4B.dpuf

EA Spend £593Million On Staff £20Million On Drainage – See more at: http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/ea-spend-593million-on-staff-20million-on-drainage-john-redwood/#sthash.fgbtrE4B.dpuf
EA Spend £593Million On Staff £20Million On Drainage – See more at: http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/ea-spend-593million-on-staff-20million-on-drainage-john-redwood/#sthash.fgbtrE4B.dpuf

In January 2014, during Somerset floods, it emerged EA had spent £31 million on wild life centre, but could not afford to dredge the levels.


By now I hope I have convinced you

It is possible to stop the Naze eroding away

What needs to be done has already been done in Tendring, and at the Naze

The amount of money required is peanuts compared to what has already been wasted on other unnecessary vanity projects.

There is never a shortage of money for projects politicians or bureaucrats want to pursue.

So what are we waiting for?

Normally at this point I would suggest you write to your mp, but if you live in Tendring Clacton constiutency you don’t have one at the moment as resigned.  But why not write to Douglas Carswell anyway.  As he’s joined a party which does not believe in global warming/climate change and is committed to get rid of the mitigation (much of prompted by EU) it’s just possible he might be more responsive.

If he want’s your vote.

On the other hand he might feel he has enough votes already.

Posted in Beaches, Breakwaters, Climate Change, CO2, EA, Electricity From Wind Power, Groynes, Salt Marsh Erosion, SMP, Temperature | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Naze Cliffs Fall Into Sea Even Though It’s Known How To Stop It