Topical debate
Post Reply
Roger Lowry
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:54 pm


Post by Roger Lowry » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:51 pm

Anyone seen this?
Proposed Marine Dredging Meeting St Agnes Hotel 25/1/13
There were representatives from the following groups;
Atlantic diving
National Trust
Cornwall Wildlife Trust
St Agnes VMCA
Friends of the Earth
Save Our Sands (Hayle)
Marine strandings
Cornwall Seal Group
Maritime Environment Policy – officer from County Council
Everyone was asked to summarise their concerns over the proposed development. They were as follows;
The extent of the proposed dredging, from Newquay to St Ives and to within 200m (200m is a VOLUNTARY limit!)off the shore
Habitat destruction
Fisheries damage
Beach sand levels
The removal/ loss of owner’s mineral rights
Destruction of wildlife e.g. pink sea fans
Disruption of the complete food chain
Landscape impact
Coastal erosion
Effect on seals and birds + dolphins, porpoises and whales
The companies report seemed superficial
Surfing and recreational water users quality of experience
Water quality- silt and toxicity
The need for factual data
Local jobs and employment are often based on the aesthetic appearance of the coast
The sea bed is not amenable to dredging, far more invasive methods will be used going to a depth of 2m
The company “Marine Minerals” is a believed to be a stalking horse and when (if) licences are granted these are likely to be sold to Chinese/ Canadian/Australian companies
The company wants to collect tin and gold + rare earths such as indium but will also disturb large amounts of arsenic
The small scale local surveys (drill cores x40,3” deep,max) showed disappointing results for the minerals sought
Volume of toxic sediment disturbed and the resulting bioaccumulation
Volume of sand / sediment disturbed and redistributed
Noise pollution and its effect on marine mammals
Boat strikes on altered bottom surface
Ducted and normal propeller strikes on marine mammals
Issues not properly addressed
The company are selling the idea that there will be a min of 100 new jobs created
If jobs do not materialise there will be no redress – the companies operating may not be the original one but some foreign one
Massive areas of water affected and could be 1mill tons removed over 10yrs and many times that in sediments returned + colossal disruption.
A more general discussion then followed. Main points summarised below;
The ocean floor will be dredged clean and tons of silt may be deposited on rocky shore areas choking the wildlife
Dredging may not be possible they may have to deploy some crawling ROV device – far more invasive but the technology does not yet exist. They want to develop it. It was felt that the effects would be much worse than dredging. Some sort of corkscrew + pipe
Currently French trawlers are kept outside the 6ml limit but these people would be within 200m of the shore doing far more damage.

On the positive side;
The scoping document they have produced is still an early stage of the whole process. But all groups MUST make their responses by 8th Feb 2013, or their points will not be raised
We have to identify areas of weakness in their proposals so they are forced to address them ie hire consultants to prove that there will not be harm caused. The company has to provide environmental impact studies
Areas that have not been covered in their document include the adverse impacts on all forms of angling. Apparently, the value of this business is greater in Cornwall than in Sc otland.
2015 is the proposed start date but this was thought to be optimistic
At least 1 company director is 70yrs old and the funding is thought to be £500,00. This is why it is thought that the company is a stalking horse – get the approval and licence and sell.
All stakeholders must register so our concerns have to be considered
SAS trustees will be asking for impact studies on the effect on water quality, the 95% sediment return and the effect on benthic organisms.
It was suggested that we make contact with the case officer from the Marine Management organisation. It was suggested that she (Lilian Sandeman) should be invited to meet both the statutory bodies (NE, CC,Environment Agengy etc) and the non-statutory, ourselves. As she is based in Newcastle, this would be a more viable option for her
We must request that we are provided with more data
We need to prioritise our concerns. Chose a few , especially if they can have an economic impact.
It was pointed out that in the 3 council areas affected, Carrick, Kerrier and Penwith, the part time jobs relating to tourism accounted for >22k jobs and full time= 14k . So the possible gain of 100+ jobs was paltry in comparison to those that could be lost as result of the impacts of this dredging

The dredging licence was for 21yrs but they propose to be active for 10yrs

Safety in the affected waters would be assured by the company by enforcing total no use of the water zones

The point was made by SAS that our economy was stronger without this project than with it

One of the urgent impacts that we need data on is cetacean feeding grounds and teh company should be made to deploy sea pods to gather data.

It is legally binding upon the company to provide data, if requested.

Please note that the mining dept of Tremough are in favour and therefore not a good source of consultants.

The conclusions of the meeting were that each group should prioritise their concerns and register them by the 8thFeb.
We would meet again to discuss further and share expertise when there has been a response but we would not form a single NO campaign. Some organisations may choose to do this but we would support each other and share info and tactics.
Meeting ended at 4.30pm
Notes taken by Jane Lloyd for St Agnes VMCA, CWT and FoE

Contact; vidauk@yahoo.com

Roger Lowry
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Dredging

Post by Roger Lowry » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:17 pm

A petition against this application can be found at.....

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests