Dover Town Council voted to write an objection as part of the current public consultation process after a vote on Wednesday 20th September.

Article from kentonline.com:

A town council has cast a majority vote against dredging the Goodwin Sands.

Dover members vote nine against three to formally object to the plans in the current public consultation.

It followed a motion by Cllr Callum Warriner who is anxious to protect war graves in the area.

He asked the council to write to the Marine Management Organisation before the end of the public consultation next week.

In a speech to colleagues on Wednesday Cllr Warriner said: ”Disturbance to this area, even if it could be managed and monitored, cannot guarantee that the natural action of sea and tide will not disrupt and disturb those resting souls consigned to sleep forever in our shadow.

“I wish Dover Harbour Board every success in their efforts to bring regeneration and prosperity to the town,

“But I for one cannot sanction the potential destruction of our maritime heritage or the graves of our brave airmen and seamen.

“We have a duty to the people of Dover and Deal, the citizens of Kent and the nation at large to protect this unique and sacred site from unnecessary damage and disturbance.”

The decision also came after councillors had heard presentations from both the port authority and leading dredging opponents Goodwin Sands SOS (Save Our Sands).

Cllr Warriner is a 20-year-old politics student at Canterbury University who was voted into the Castle ward in a by-election last October.

Dover Harbour Board is applying to the government’s MMO for a licence to dredge a section of the Sands off Deal for its Dover Western Docks Revival development.

Fiona Punter, co-ordinator for dredging opponents Goodwin Sands SOS (Save Our Sands) said after the meeting: “We are absolutely delighted by this outcome, it is far more than we expected.

“We are extremely grateful to Callum and to all the councillors who voted to support him.”

GSSOS Campaign co-ordinator Joanna Thomson added: “This decision sends a very strong and clear message to the MMO that whilst the people of Dover want to see the regeneration go ahead they are not prepared to sacrifice our marine environment and heritage to achieve it.”

A Port of Dover spokesman later: “We are deeply disappointed and bemused by this decision from Dover Town Council.

“Throughout the licence submission we have been fully compliant with due process and have responded to all the Marine Management Organisation’s requests.

“The decision should be based solely on the evidence and facts put before it.”

The harbour board argues that it is only dredging 0.22% of the sands and it is needed to help provide jobs and regeneration for Dover.

The third public consultation on this ends at midnight tomorrow .

You can have your say by going online via the MMO public register at gov.uk/check-marine-licence-register.

Or you can email marine.consents@marinemanagement.org.uk.

www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/council-stands-against-goodwins-dredging-132573/

An MP has condemned a “cheapskate approach” over the dredging of the Goodwin Sands to make way for a major port redevelopment.

Sir Roger Gale has written a letter of objection to Dover Harbour Board’s public consultation condemning its plans to dig the area to cut costs.

Article from: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/cheapskate-attempt-to-dredge-sands-132339/

He says there could be 2,000 ships buried there and tens of thousands of people, many in war graves.

The North Thanet MP’s letter – sent to the Marine Management Organisation – has been sent in response to the third public consultation over Dover Harbour Board’s application for a licence to dredge the sands for its Dover Western Docks Revival development.

He said: “I am not opposed to the development of the Port of Dover but I do not believe that a cheapskate approach such as that proposed can be regarded as acceptable in the context of our maritime and aviation heritage.

“I trust that the application will be rejected.”

The public consultation ends on Thursday, September 28.

Sir Roger says that having discussed the issue with port bosses he remains convinced that the digging would have a harmful effect on a site of enormous maritime archaeological importance and a civilian and war grave location.

He wrote: “Notwithstanding undertakings that wrecks of ships and aircraft have been identified and that the removal of further sand in ‘small quantities’ and ‘from the periphery of the site’ it is inevitable, given the shifting nature of the sands, that any such extraction will lead to a compensatory infill and the likely exposure of buried remains.

He added: “It is believed that there are some 2,000 ships and tens of thousands of people that have found their final resting place in the sands in addition to many aircraft.

“It is not acceptable that these should be disturbed except under properly controlled, monitored and recorded archaeological conditions.

“The proposals as submitted seem to me to take a cavalier attitude towards what is in very real terms part of our national and international heritage and I can find no evidence of any protocols in place to pay other than lip-service to the likelihood of an unanticipated discovery.”

Sir Roger said he believed that the attempt to dredge the sands is “driven solely by cost,” yet there are alternative sites as close as the Thames Estuary.

The MP had previously spoken out against the dredging, in a KM column for his constituency, last month.

Read more