Dawlish Discussion

Network Rail were due to carry out rock drilling for 5 test anchors in front of Riviera Terrace and Sea Lawn Terrace this week.
All part of the work required to raise the level of the sea wall. Apparently they were stopped because someone complained about the noise that would be made! It all sounds like stalling tactics to me by the very small minority that don't want the wall to be raised to the same level of the rest of the wall. By delaying the work all that will be achieved is the houses down there will have less protection for longer, the beach will be closed for longer and less people will want to come here next year on holiday if the beach and sea wall are still closed and that could happen!

 not my post this is the comment of a resident

Oh do I soooooo miss not being able to walk along the beach (low tide) or sea wall path when there's a higher tide twixt the town and the bridge by Rockstone. Exeter Road is unbelievably boring to walk along. 

And take a look at page XVI of the property pages in today's Gazette. Force and Sons are acting as agents for a ground floor flat for sale on Sea Lawn Terrace. It'll have more than 'panoramic sea views' if that sea wall doesn't get built up before winter!

What's that you say? The price? £119,950  

Then on page VI Fraser and Wheeler have a three bed maisonetter for sale on Riviera Terrace for £135,000     

Peter Large is in favour of the wall being raised, its his wife Ann who protests. I think you will find the people concerned live further down  away from the damage

See what i mean about JUDITH CHALMERS . So so sad.

Thanks Roberta. Apologies for the confusion. My opinion re his quotes in last weeks paper stand, and as for the letters in this weeks edition, well I've never read so much ill-informed twaddle by so many people in such a small space.  

Anyway, I've deleted my earlier post, even though my lawyer fears that I may be too late to have avoided the professional screenshotters...

Oh and thanks Pete (or whatever your alias is this week). 

See you are backing down then. AGAIN

@Judith Chalmers

CAPS LOCK!  

I've apologised for the error of getting the two Larges mixed up.  Without wishing to sound like SMELLA, this bullying from you and those sheep that have agreed with (but failed to post a comment about) your posting goes against the T&Cs of the website. 

Anyway, even I make mistakes sometimes.

Not very often granted...

Against the T&Cs of the website . WHY ?

CAPS LOCK

BAAAAAA! 

O i get it. Sheep. pmsl.

Pete, to quote yourself, please give it a rest.  For someone who's 'new', you've quickly jumped on the Mrs C bashing bandwagon.  It's predictable and boring. 

@Mcjrpc take it you are as you say mrs c ? 

 You were quick changing accounts.

So we've got Pete, GazLord and Annother46 trolling everywhere.   I'm thinking Andysport might be right.  

Not to forget this Sandycott character who appeared on 22 July, and whose 2 posts have both been a dig at me. Trolling is against the T&Cs is it not?

These multiple account holders are, happily, oh-so-obvious.

Yes you are. Can not see any Trolling going on here.

I am sure the Webmaster would have put a stop to it by now as he knows what he's doing.

@Pete,

Please read my posts:-

https://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/33887

Lets keep things impersonal on here.

So are you saying i am in the wrong ?

@Pete, I am just pointing out that I agree with others that bullying goes on on this forum. I wouldn't necessarily classify the activities as trolling except perhaps for gaz taylor's attacks on Andysport.

My last sentence was meant for everyone except for those who already keep things impersonal.

@roberta - good thread started, shame it's ended up being another 'muddied' one.

To get back to the point of the thread, it seems a 'no-brainer' to me.  Surely to goodness it must have occurred to anyone buying a property along this stretch of seafront in the last 150 years that they were taking on a certain amount of environmental risk in return for the priviledge of being in 'pole position' for a sea view?  And any self respecting surveyor must have pointed this out as well.

So then to complain when 'hard working'  taxpayers money is used to try to stop them from being washed away... (ok far more to do with saving the railway than them) really does take the biscuit...

There is many a good person living down the east coast who has seen their once lengthy front garden and house washed away with not a penny spent on preventing it....or look no further than some cliff-top houses southside of Dawlish...

Quite. What I find amazing is why anyone living along there thinks their wishes for privacy will take priority over the security of the rail line. Which isn't to say that they aren't entitled to express their concerns and wishes - of course they are. It's just that the rail line and its security will trump any objections concerning privacy and/or noise.       

So what happens if there is an objection by one or two people.  Can they go ahead still?

Don't see why not. And I say that on two counts.

1. Believe planning permission is being sought to raise the height of the wall. As with any other planning application people will be able to say what they think about what is being proposed. ie I support this planning application because..........I object to this planning application because..........  But note that just because people register objections does not mean however that planning permission will be refused.

2. Is it really in anyway feasible that the one and only rail link to/from the south west plus the properties along the line at Dawlish (and let's not forget people's lives as well!) would in any way be allowed to be compromised by the powers that be given that they, and we, all know of the problems at this part of the railway?   

As they say, you cannot make omlettes without breaking eggs and I thought everything was on a tight schedule before autumn storms kick in.

Defies all reasonable logic really, you would think that self preservation would be even a selfish person's top priority.

Can anyone clarify the type and/or size of anchors size being used? Am thinking they have to be reasonably beefy ones?

Am not a rock-anchor specialist, but I wonder whether the 'noise objection' is actually more to do with building vibration?

Mind you, I cannot see that aspect would be significantly worse than hundreds of tons of train regularly charging past your window!!

Smella gone, but not forgotten. By one person anyway!!

By more than one, judging by your username...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28551480

Odd I should mention East Coast erosion – is this really what the Sea Lawn noise protesters would rather experience (see link)!!

I watched this on the news the other night, its frightening, thank God we have the railway :(