Dawlish News
Plans to raise a seawall in a Devon town, which was breached in winter storms, have been criticised by some residents worried about their privacy.
Network Rail wants to increase the height of the wall in Dawlish to protect the main railway line which was destroyed by storms in February.
A walkway on top of the wall is used by thousands of people every year.
The company said it was confident it could find a solution "which works for almost everyone".
'Standing and gawping'
In the 1840s, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who created the rail line, lost the same battle with a landowner.
The landowner insisted the wall should be lowered so he did not lose his privacy, with walkers looking in.
BBC Spotlight South West are featuring this story today. Was shown this lunchtime and should be on again this evening on BBC1 after the national news.
Perhaps they would like to take out insurance for replacing the line the next time the sea wall collapses.
So National Rail faced with objections to wall improvements may well now have all they need to suggest the inland build to Government and Dawlish Parkway?
Let's see. If the area was devastated again next year, like it was this year, I wonder who they will complain to, saying the defences were not adequate?
This was Peter Large's rent-a-quote on March 5 in the Gazette:
Its only a few who dont want it Peter Large does its his wife who doesnt. As has been said on Eyes get some curtains!!! many people in town have pedestrians walking past their windows
There is a quarter page ad in this week's Dawlish Post (see bottom page 74) concerning the proposed works. I've followed the links on the website shown in the ad and this link should take you straight to what is being proposed.
The piece on the news i saw a few days ago revolved round security it was mentioned it would make it easy for houses to be broken into. So one would cross the railway scale a 3 foot wall with a 4 foot fence on top or maybe just maybe walk down from Exeter Road to do the dastardly deed. The real point is do they want security from the sea or not and at the end of the day if you dont like it move.
Surely the primary purpose of the repairs is to protect the rail line. Now, I'm not an engineer but........surely it follows that if the rail line is given greater protection than so will the properties located behind it. And whilst I appreciate there is a potential invasion of privacy issue I would have thought that protection from the sea would be the issue of primary importance by all those who live by the side of the railway.
It will certainly be the issue of primary importance as far as Network Rail, the government, train operators, train passengers, and many others are concerned.
So, if push comes to shove, and no compromise can be reached whereby strengthening the wall does not infringe on the privacy of the residents what issue will take priority?
No brainer really.
@Lynne - it is a total no brainer, people buy a house with industrial sized trains running past their windows, which they wish to keep, and their house foundations this winter - security - get a net curtain like most of the rest of us!!
Of course this is just five points for starters - it remains to be seen just how many complaints get raised when the 'real seawall solution' gets selected and built.
Will there be summary info available about the seawall options on display next week?
I know it's only about the Warren, but still interesting to know the thinking for that end at least.
Unsurprising comments from those not affected. I can assure you that 'industrial sized' trains passing every now and then is far less intrusive than cars passing by every minute on a highway, that's presumably part of their decision to live there. Yes, they should be relieved their homes might be safer but is it out of the question that the wall could be three feet lower and be just as effective, without the need for 'net curtains' ? It's a massive loss to their privacy and who wouldn't want to make sure the change was the last and only resort.
I've just tried that link I posted on here a couple of days ago. Not working now for some reason.
Not easy to find on the info on the Marine Management website.
Here it is again. https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk/mmo/fox?thread_id=e2kfdx6_dtoEjVpal&app_mnem=live&xfsessionid=sid_e2kfbEL_dtoEjVpal
(and I've just clicked on it and it takes me straight to the info concerning the proposed works on the Dawlish sea wall.) If it stops doing that can someone let me know please.
okay try this step by step approach.
1. Do a search on www.marinemanagement.org.uk/publicregister
2. Click on Marine Case Management System
3.Click on South Western
4.Scroll down until you find case ref: MLA/2014/00220 (it is about three-quarters of the way down the page).
5. Go to right hand side and click on View Application
6. Just scroll down a little bit and Bingo! (or should be - let me know if not).
@Lynne. had to download application because it would not let me view it. a list of files has appeared which i will read later.
There's a lot of technical detail but in terms of practical impact I see that the removal of the containers/contents will be done by sea and will mean closure of the area from mid August into September, therefore no access along the seawall between Dawish and the Warren for holidaymakers and those walking that way for the Airshow/Bank Holiday weekend.
Today''s Gazette carries the story on, but why? The Birmingham man who negotiated the deal with Brunel to have a lower path was dead before the railway opened. That length of wall has collapsed on other occasions and Network Rail now want to make it as strong as the rest of it. They will also most likely extend the concrete footing that they put in some years ago from Red Rock almost to the point at which it failed.
The people who have come to live along the railway have done so knowing that trains pass their windows, and sometimes very slowly as they wait for signals, and the passengers sit higher than passers-by on the sea wall.
A further factor no-one seems to take account of is the difficulty the present arrangement creates for holiday makers with push-chairs trying to take the sea wall walk from Dawlish Warren to Dawlish, or v.v. A new level walk might also be accessible by those in electric wheel chairs, and be a plus-point in the benefit of a holiday in our area. It would also be safer for those walking the route when tides are high. None of these points seem to enter the consideration of those who campaign for their 'privacy'.
I strongly agree with you Robert, most of us who live in Dawlish have people walking by within feet of our windows, and I would say that most probably applies to a lot of places. People who have sweeping drives and country residences are lucky.
Actually RV I had also been thinking about wheel chair users etc and had thought to myself that should NR/the engineers agree that the Sea Lawn Terrace/Riviera Terrace part of the walkway could be a bit lower than the rest of it then the lower bit needs to be accessed via a slope. Definitely not steps.
I sincerely hope that option is not even implemented, should be a straight through walkway, a slope will become slippery in wet conditions and somebody could lose control in a wheelchair. And what about people who walk with the aid of sticks or frame not very H&S
Yes Roberta I agree with what you say. I was just trying to find a compromise situation (engineering approval allowing) between public access/privacy/and storm resilience.
But if no compromise is possible then I think all would agree that storm resilience is number one priority. I think most would then see it closely followed by the need for public access for all along the walkway. Perhaps NR can come out with other ideas re privacy for the residents.
This path raising is nothing more than 'best quick fix' (or 'low hanging fruit' as it gets called these days) to make the wall consistent with how it should have been built on day 1, and to give Dawlish some sort of fighting chance of last winter's collapse not being repeated.
Nevertheless, it will be very interesting indeed to see how much debate is generated once the proper long term marine solutions are published, given how many comments these extremely minor improvements have raised!