Ladies and Gentlemen, some of you will recall I came along to one of your meetings earlier this year at the Berwick Inn to present a proposal for a new approach to Seaford Flood defence- in particular a reef based approach as alternative to the strategy of the last twenty years, the so called "shingle re-alignment" strategy first introduced 1987.
I am now in the process of putting together a formal proposal, I aim to place it with Seaford and Newhaven Town councils October- November. I would very much appreciate it if your club could contribute to this proposal and invite you to produce on no more than one side of A4 why a reef would be attractive from a dive perspective (opportunity for new divers, maybe a scuba opportunty for youngsters, marine life studies etc. etc.).
On a more technical front, my proposal will suggest siting the reef around 260-270 metres from the promenade which should be at around the 2 metre chart datum contour. Is there any chance a dive could be organised off say the salts recreation ground to determine what the depth is at this distance from the shore? If you would like me to meet, please let me know.
Many thanks, Jim Skinner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hi Jim, sounds very much within our capacity! And also a good excuse for another dive! I'm sure we'll get cracking on the idea. Members of dive clubs in the area are regular readers of this blog and so you may well get other groups willing to assist. Chris
good idea count me in.it would be good to hear Jims thoughts on the other artificial reef proposal for Seaford.
True , Jim's comments welcomed. At a glance the major difference is that Jim's plan involves a close to shore reef (visible at low tide) whereas Tony's plan involves an artificial reef but not one that is likely to offer any protection to the Seaford Coast. Jim's plan would create something akin to a lagoon which would be a bonus to a wider range of water/beach users than another wreck off the coast. Jim's reef would be made of natural materials (rock!) and thus not raise worries of polution.
Posted on behalf of Jim
Many thanks for your support, if I can help further please let me know. As far as the dive wreck idea is concerned, of course in principle, I am all in favour, a full size reef needs however to perform functions other than just be a great place to dive!
Any chance of anybody volunteering to put some words together for inclusion in my proposal? deadline say early October.
Jim,
No problem...we have a small team working on some words already! Chris
major differences between Jims plan and Tonys, one ship will cost £1m, a reef from rocks £26m +. Environmental agency see no reason to change policy on beach defences.SEEDA funding may provide half for a ship, as in Plymouth, so the rest is a realistic amount to raise by private means. Also if as with HMS SCYLLA it generates £1M PER ANNUM, you can start to push for a more permanent reef at alater date . While Jims idea is commendable it is not going to get the money from government.My initial aim is to provide a dive facility, to attract tourists to our area and to generate income to the town to help contribute to other much needed facilities on our seafront.We have to start somewhere,and one ship is a great start!!!
Post a Comment