9th March 2010 Feedback
The Cuckmere Estuary Partnership wants your views on how the estuary should be managed. Please post your comments below, or email info@cuckmere.org.uk to find out how you can get involved.
The Cuckmere Estuary Partnership wants your views on how the estuary should be managed. Please post your comments below, or email info@cuckmere.org.uk to find out how you can get involved.
L.Brown on 27 Jan 2009 at 8:30 pm #
I went for a walk down to cuckmere today – and it got me thinking. I had forgotten about the sea EA’s plan until I saw the coastguard cottages and the appeal on the board outside. It is very easy for us all to forget.
Hope you don’t mind a few suggestions.
Is there an email address we can contact rather than phone? These days, for a lot of email is the best way for people to communicate as they can fit it into a busy life – any time of day or night. The internet is a very flexible medium and often the only one that people use now. you need to make more of the net
- set up a database for an emailing list so that you can send email updates about progress, web updates etc to people who have registered their interest in this issue -
- have you also thought of an e-petition?
- have you thought of a little video on You-Tube? (I am a film maker – ist easy to do)
- A facebook page?
Just some thoughts on gathering support.
L.Brown on 27 Jan 2009 at 8:34 pm #
I didn’t realise that this feedback would be posted publicly or that there would be no chance to go back and edit…… so there are some typo corkers in the above.
admin on 27 Jan 2009 at 8:51 pm #
Hi L Brown,
Thanks so much for your comments – they were very helpful.
You’ll see we’ve already followed up on two of your suggestions: we’ve added an email address on the home page and will start keeping a database of everyone who registers their interest.
If you’d like to be added to this list, please email us at info@cuckmere.org.uk and we’ll keep you posted about forthcoming events about the future of the Estuary.
Best wishes
Jo (administrator)
N Babe on 01 Apr 2009 at 5:34 pm #
Hi I think that you could just make a notice board somewhere.
And ask people to send in their thoughts on the estuary project.
The you tube video idea was good and I hope you find this idea useful too!!
I hope everything goes well for the project!
Your sincercly N. Babe
admin on 09 Apr 2009 at 6:09 pm #
Hi, thanks for this – good idea!
We’re looking in to adding ‘feedback’ sections at the bottom of different pages of the site so people can send in their comments and suggestions (the more the better!).
Jo (administrator)
Kieran Simkin on 13 May 2009 at 4:20 am #
Hi,
I’m a photographer who still remembers being taken to Cuckmere Haven on a school trip at the age of 11. Cuckmere Haven is a special and nostalgic place to me, so my goal now is to comprehensively document the changes to the landscape at Cuckmere Haven and publish this work online. A website is online already and this will be updated as my project progresses. You can see my Cuckmere Haven feature here:
http://slinq.com/gallery/features/cuckmere-haven/
Best regards,
~Kieran Simkin
tristram on 24 May 2009 at 11:55 pm #
Hi
I’ve checked out at Kieran Simkin’s photographs and they’re excellent – well worth a look. He might be interested though in a small correction to the text on his site, which says “the council” has decided it’s not going to maintain flood protection any more. In fact it is only the Environment Agency, which has some responsibilities for flooding, that has made a public decision on this – which applies only to itself. Many other bodies, including several councils, have separate responsibilities, the effect of which still has to be worked out. The future of this amazing river valley and estuary is still to be discussed and decided. Anyhow I hope Kieran will keep on recording it, whatever the future holds.
Cheers, Tristram
Lucy on 10 Jun 2009 at 2:07 pm #
One of the things that is not widely known about the possible consequences of the EA walking away from the Cuckmere Valley is the risk it poses to Coastguard Cottages. Loss of the beach (when the groynes disintegrate) will undermine the seawall and therefore the cottages. Aside from their iconic status (pictures of the cottages and cliffs are used world-wide as symbols of the UK) they are an intrinsic part of the history of the valley and an important definition in the landscape. I would like some assurances that the safety of these buildings is considered in the wider plans for the valley, and they are not merely overlooked as they have been so far.
Kelly Brown on 13 Jun 2009 at 12:59 am #
The article is ver good. Write please more
JaneRadriges on 14 Jun 2009 at 2:46 am #
I really like your post. Does it copyright protected?
KattyBlackyard on 15 Jun 2009 at 8:34 am #
Hi, interest post. I’ll write you later about few questions!
David Soulsby on 16 Jun 2009 at 12:41 pm #
I have just looked at the website and the three options – most interesting!
However, I feel that the description of the three options is weighted heavily in the direction of the partnership’s preferred option – working with nature.
I wholly agree that to do nothing is not an option, and that this option may reasonably be discarded.
However, I should like to know a great deal more about the option of strengthening the defences.
It is clear that current government policy will prevent the EA spending money to this end – but given the importance of the site, has there been any lobbying for a change in policy?
The remainder of the partnership’s description of this option makes 6 substantive points:
Defences would need to be raised – this goes without saying.
Defences would need to be widened – to support the extra height? for what other reasons?
Why with an artificial concrete structure? Have other methods been explored? what other possibilities are there?
Why would there be a risk of catastrophic failure? Does this apply to other sea defences? if not, why not? What would make these particular defences different?
Strengthened defences would detract from the beauty of the area: why? could they not be covered by grass banks, as at present? and in any case if we work with nature, the current beauty of the area will be irretrievably lost…
It will cost £18m – where has this figure come from? What estimates have been obtained? Is this for strengthening both sides of the river? Has the partnership considered strenthening the eastern bank only? Would that not halve the cost (and leave a substantial area now protected by the western bank defences to revert to nature and provide the advantages described in the preferred option?)
A separate point: what plans has the partnership for protecting the causeway that carries the A259 across the valley? as soon as the current east bank defences are allowed to lapse, will not that causeway be at immediate risk?
You can see that I should like to see much more detail given in your description of this option, and much greater thought devoted to it than appears to be the case from what is currently posted on the website.
GarykPatton on 16 Jun 2009 at 2:20 pm #
Hello, can you please post some more information on this topic? I would like to read more.
admin on 18 Jun 2009 at 9:41 am #
Hi Gary,
What sort of information would be most helpful to you? If you’re able to come to one of the engagement events that would be a great opportunity to find out more about the estuary,
Jo (admin)
tom on 22 Jun 2009 at 10:01 pm #
I understand they were going to let a lot of the Norfolk Broads be inundated (Hickling area specifically) but the plan had to be dropped due to local opposition – see for example http://savethebroads.blogspot.com/ – so policies can be changed where politically expedient.
Peter Longstaff-Tyrrell on 23 Jun 2009 at 12:15 pm #
I am concerned that our inheritance of the lower Cuckmere Valley as we know it will be lost with possibly unforeseen circumstances. The prospect of a scenic flow of sea water ebbing and flowing inland may seem attractive but with global warming who can predict where it all may develop to?
Prior to the 1846 opening of The Cut canal, that considerably eased tidal flow of the river, what we know as the A259 causeway was a dyke (embankment) that had for centuries kept back spring tides that flooded the valley south to the estuary to a height of 8-10 feet. In making the canal this conicided with the easing of the locked sea water.
To let the river banks go could allow a flexible influx of English Channel towards Exceat Cuaseway and take out the section of the vital A259 coast road. The tidal wave could flood further inland to affect Alfriston and Sherman’s Bridge.
In life often a compromise is the best solutuion. Why not just protect that eastern bank.
How dare the EA, a public appinted body, allow this major leisure eesource revert back to nature. Go along the paths to Foxhole any day and see how many school parties are enjoying the acres around the river.
Peter Tyrrell
Peter Longstaff-Tyrrell on 23 Jun 2009 at 3:29 pm #
I wonder what thought/potential outcome has been given to management of traditional long-shore drift at the Cuckmere estuary? Managed as it is, without the EA controls in place,would the river revert to coming out nearer Cliff Brow.
The estuary and inland acres could become just a muddy mire like the Adur around Shoreham or indeed as the saltings just south of the Golden Galleon.
This cannot be seen as an attractive alternative to continued EA management of the area.
PLT
Richard Mann on 24 Jun 2009 at 12:05 pm #
I agree with a previous comment, that the present sea defences have worked for 160 years and with sensible maintenance can continue to do so, until and if rising sea levels mean a major rethink this will not be apparent for at least 20 years. Any other action will be much more expensive as the A 259 will have to be defended in a different way and that means new flood barriers. Millions of pounds rather than thousands. Let local people have more say in the ongoing process of plan and operation, and not just the people who purport to look after our interests. EG the Evvironment Agency and The Cuckmere Estuary Partnership.
Kieran Simkin on 25 Jun 2009 at 5:21 pm #
Hi Tristram,
Thanks for the correction – I’ve amended my site so that it refers to the Environment Agency rather than the council.
I will say one thing – there is very little on the web in the way of a definitive source on what might be involved in a managed withdrawal. For example; I have heard the suggestion that the flow of the river might be diverted back into the meanders – is this true? How would this effect the area near the visitors centre? I guess what I’m getting at is that saying “working with nature” doesn’t really mean a lot until you explain what possibilities are available and how they will affect the landscape.
I’ve gone to some considerable effort to gather together all of the information I could find on the web about the possible changes and compile it into a links page (which you can see online at http://slinq.com/links/cuckmere-haven/). If anyone has any relevant suggestions to add to this list please contact me via my website.
It has to be said; after doing hours of research online I still haven’t a clue as to what the Cuckmere Estuary might look like in 10 years time. I have been invited to participate in a public engagement event but I would like to have read some information on what the possible options are before I attend such an event – at the moment I don’t know enough to form an opinion – I understand that obviously more information will be available at the event, but that gives me a couple of hours in which to digest the material and form an opinion; my brain doesn’t work that quickly! Surely the Environment Agency must have written some reports on the various options, why can’t I find any of these online?
Best regards,
~Kieran
deus ex machina on 25 Jun 2009 at 5:49 pm #
Hi,
I’m trying to collect peoples views on the project and better understand what the best outcome for the Cuckmere Estuary will be. Please feel free to visit my site at http://cuckmere.blogspot.com/ and leave any comments.
L Dan on 28 Jun 2009 at 8:26 pm #
In response to Peter Longstaff-Tyrells comment about the Cuckmere becoming ‘a muddy mire’ this is far from the case. While the Adur at Shoreham may not be the most attractive area of the sussex coastline, the estuary will be managed properly, like Pagham and Chichester Harbours in the West, and they are both AONB(areas of outstanding natural beauty) also, you can still have school, trips to the area, as well as nature trails and such, and it will allow local children to have a better understanding of the local environment. Also, in terms of local income, there are numerous alternatives to the income the area brings for example, the beach, a major attraction for tourists, will still be there, and the paths through the valley can be replaced. Also, it is worth remembering that there are hundeds of acres worth of beautiful scenery all around this area for toursits to enjoy, surely it wont kill everybody to sacrifice a small amount of the area for the good of nature?
admin on 29 Jun 2009 at 12:53 pm #
Thanks for this post, and for all the other recent comments about the work of the Cuckmere Estuary Partnership and the issues surrounding the estuary. We warmly welcome all feedback, and it’s good to see this message board being so well used.
Do please remember to sign up to come and share your views at one of the forthcoming engagement events or to take part in our online survey if you’ve not already done so.
Best wishes
Jo (admin)
Chris Wick on 30 Jun 2009 at 12:36 am #
Great to see so many comments on here!
I represent the Environment Agency on the Cuckmere Estuary Partnership and I thought I’d try and answer some of the questions which relate to the Agency.
Firstly, we are not walking away from the estuary! We will be around on the ground monitoring changes and keeping the river mouth clear of shingle for as long as is necessary. Furthermore, we are absolutely committed to working with all of you through the Partnership to help develop and implement a long term management plan.
In the past we have maintained the flood defences in the estuary, but we are now approaching the point where the existing defences simply aren’t large or strong enough to cope with future sea level rise and climate change. We’ve calculated that it will cost £18M to “hold the line” for the next hundred years. If £18M sounds like a lot, consider that we currently spend between £30,000 and £50,000 annually just keeping the mouth of the river clear. That’s already £3M – £5M over 100 years (without considering inflation). We cannot justify spending this money on defences in the estuary when there are homes which need protection elsewhere; and the government funding rules won’t allow it.
The whole debate about what happens next seems to really polarise people, but I believe that we can find a solution which preserves those things that we most value; whether that be footpaths, access for recreation, or the Coast Guard Cottages. Funding will be a huge challenge, but the starting point is to find out what people think is most important. That’s where the Partnership’s workshops and surveys come in. Please get involved!
At the Environment Agency we have a preference for a naturally functioning estuary, because we see benefits for both people and wildlife. Personally, I believe that a more naturally functioning estuary would turn out to be staggeringly beautiful! Imagine groups of school children visiting to see meanders flowing rather than static, bird watchers visiting in droves to see the wildfowl, geographers studying the estuary as it changes, and the sun setting over a natural mosaic of shallows, mud flats, and saltmarsh!
Note: you can find some information on how we reached our funding decision at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/54452.aspx
The full strategy was too large to put on our website, but you can obtain a copy by sending an e-mail to: sokes@environment-agency.gov.uk
Best wishes
Chris
D Abbott on 01 Jul 2009 at 8:18 pm #
There is a plan to raise the river banks in the estuary by 300mm (1ft) to give 50 years protection, by when more will be known on climate change. These plans have been approved by Lewes & Wealden District Councils
Chris Wick on 03 Jul 2009 at 12:17 am #
I think that it is fair to say that there is now consensus amongst climate scientists that our climate is changing and that sea levels are rising significantly. Government expect us to plan on the basis that sea levels will rise by 1 metre over the next 100 years.
Actual measurements of historic sea level rise (as measured by NERC Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory) are available on: http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/sustainable/quality04/maind/04n02.htm?lang=_e
You can see quite clearly that sea level rise has been happening since 1900 at a rate of about 2mm a year. What we can’t be sure of is how fast it will accelerate as climate change increases.
If you are interested in the possible effects of climate change on the estuary, the met office have just released their long awaited UKCP09 predictions. You can find out more by visiting: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/
Best wishes
Chris
tristram on 05 Jul 2009 at 10:24 pm #
Hi Kieran
Thanks for telling us about your website links page – there’s certainly a lack of information, although I see Chris Wick has helpfully come online with some Environment Agency arguments and texts. During the EA consultation exercise in 2007 I raised concerns about the material on which local residents like me were being asked to express an opinion. Their spokeswoman said the EA had to strike a balance so the public was not overburdened with factual evidence.
When I asked for the assumptions underlying their financial projections (such as the figure of £18 million over 100 years for sea defences) she did offer further numbers, but these were far from convincing. Figures for the ‘cheaper’ options omitted some obvious knock-on costs which would have made the figures much closer to the most ‘expensive’ options, and possibly higher. They assumed visitor numbers to the estuary would be unaffected by flooding it (does anyone really believe this?), and made no reference to the huge potential costs of shoring up and repairing the A259 (which I see others on this board are also concerned about). There were several other big figures missing.
I think you’re right to be unsure about how the estuary would look under these current proposals. In a warming environment, the interplay of tidal waters and mud may be a much less picturesque and fragrant scene than is being implied, and predicting this seems an intrinsically uncertain art. I also share your confusion about the terminology being used. What does ‘working with nature’ actually mean? The decision to sweep away the unique habitat supported by SSSI status will be a human decision, not one taken by ‘nature’, even if other species would – with expert monitoring and help – eventually replace them. Chris Wick reassuringly says the EA intends to “keep the river mouth clear of shingle”. That’s a good thing in my view, but isn’t it ‘working against nature’ – which is trying its best to close the river mouth?
The fact is that local people including farmers have over the centuries created the Cuckmere’s current landscape by cautious, financially prudent changes as and when they became necessary. They were equally ‘working with nature’, while also being prepared to straighten sections of the river, in the 19th century for instance, to improve drainage. The unique beauty of the current estuary landscape, with its combination of meanders and straight lines, is the product of those interventions and tells their story. Their spirit of careful pragmatism might be more helpful to the estuary than the 100 year timeframe under which Chris admits he is directed to work by government guidance. As with the financial projections, a 100 year prediction about the precise behaviour of an estuary cannot be based on reliable science.
I also question the logic of separating the estuary, for decision and consultation purposes, from the river north of the A259. Its fate will be intimately connected with events in a flooded estuary, and if ‘working with nature’ means anything, surely the river which feeds the estuary is part of the natural unit. There are settlements at flooding risk in the valley, which have been hit in the past.
Like you I’ve now had my information pack for the consultation exercise, and agree it will be difficult to come to meaningful views about the issues in one meeting. The marketing agency running the consultation is employed by the National Trust. As an NT member, I’m aware it has many coastal areas to manage through climate change. It may be worried about setting a precedent, though surely each landscape must be treated on its own merits, and looked after in partnership with those who live near and use it, as Richard Mann suggests above.
Norman Baker MP has pointed out that the EA’s consultation exercise in 2007 cost £650,000. That sum, if invested in the estuary, could have maintained it for many years, at which point the science, and the actual effects on the ground, would be a whole lot clearer. Although the EA consultation brochure announced six ‘options’ for the estuary, the detailed text only countenanced one – which it duly chose.
There seems some risk another misdirection of resources may occur under the current consultation. Last year the Cuckmere Valley Parish Council, which not only represents the area but possesses considerable experience of managing the river landscape, applied to join the Partnership. This relationship quickly ended, it seems, when the councillors were told they must first sign a document agreeing to the ‘working with nature’ option of flooding the estuary, which the existing members had already agreed to. If the Partnership’s stance has already been privately arrived at, it is hard to fathom what this consultation exercise can practically achieve. But as a natural optimist, I’m always prepared for a pleasant surprise.
Cheers, Tristram
T.D.A. on 07 Jul 2009 at 2:53 pm #
Charts show sea level rise at Newhaven, over the last 10 years, have remained static and sea temperatures also show an average small fall and so are we seeing a change, as experienced 40-50 years ago, when we experienced much warmer summers and as we have just had, colder winters?
Maintaining the status quo in the Cuckmere valley for 50 years, as so many local residents & visitors want, would seem to be the ideal solution, until more is known about the affects of climate change.
It would also be far less costly than allowing the valley to flood, with expensive work necessary to protect the A259 against storm damage, resiting of public footpaths and a vehicle right of way. In addition the river mouth will still need to be kept free flowing, more so than at present, because once allowed to meander out to sea it will have a slower discharge and so silt up quicker and not be self cleansing.
Chris Coleman on 07 Jul 2009 at 5:34 pm #
I agree with most of what Tristram says. I have lived in the Valley for over 50 years.
Some of the following comments will reiterate his points, perhaps not so eloquently.
· There is no cost free option .
· When the cut was dug there were no considerations of boosting tourism, improving scenic beauty or altering or improving wildlife environment.
We are constantly told of the benefits of increased tourism and the need to encourage wildlife. People and wildlife are incompatible. Any increase in tourism is of no benefit to the majority of residents. Waitress jobs for our daughters are small compensation for the general increase in congestion and road traffic in our parish. How do parties of school children on geography field trips or people transporting bicycles on their cars help the local wildlife or economy?
· We need more information about costs and visual and physical impact of proposals. In particular about projected expenses for protecting the A259, car parks, barns etc and also information about how this figure of £18 million was calculated. Is flooding and silting of estuary area going to cause the land there to rise in relation to the area north of the 259 causeway making upstream flooding more likely? Could we please have a figure for how much public money has already been spent on all aspects of these proposals?
· It is not true to say as the EA does, that there are no homes at risk of flooding. Ask residents in Alfriston and West Dean about the 2000 floods. Those of us who live here and pay our rates and taxes, have a right to expect our roads to be kept open and our homes and businesses not be placed at risk.
· We seem to be being pressured into accepting without question, one or other of the environment agencies three options. Anything other than continuing with present arrangements is going to be a leap in the dark.
· The land south of the 259 is far too small for a useful area of salt marsh and mud flats. Should we sacrifice existing flora, fauna, and visual splendour for very uncertain benefits.
· The A259 where it crosses the valley acts as a dam, effecting all the valley up to Sherman’s Bridge and the A27. When flooding of the valley occurs, the river initially discharges over the banks near Alfriston. This water moves slowly down the valley until it reaches the A259.· The Cuckmere is never going obediently to do a left turn at Exeat bridge without causing flooding upstream.
· It is blatantly obvious that sooner or later the A259 causeway will be at risk. Has anyone considered building a viaduct across the valley and removing the pathetic single lane bridge at the Golden Galleon?
If the above suggestion fills too many people with horror, consider a new large culvert and sluice under the eastern edge of the causeway, discharging into the meanders and at the same time allowing a certain amount of water into the meanders at the Golden Galleon but keeping the existing cut open. I must also stress the importance of keeping existing ditches sluices and culverts clear and in working order.
· Those living and working in the valley are small in numbers. We are most affected, but I suspect that our voices are drowned by a very large majority of people who have no direct contact. Our Parish Council has been effectively excluded from the Cuckmere Estuary Partnership. Why is there no representation from anyone living in the valley?
Richard Mann on 10 Jul 2009 at 12:35 pm #
I would like to think that we will arrive at a workable solution and that attempted
solutions will not be rushed. Adopting the approach of sensible maintenance of the existing sea defences or raising the banks by 300ml will give useful thinking time and provide a least cost option. Also the question of serious work above the A 259 must be brought into the thinking, otherwise the flood risk at West Dean and Alfriston will become a rael threat once more.
Andrew Dineen on 11 Jul 2009 at 11:59 am #
I was disappointed to see that your survey does not actually ask people for their views, only for information on how they use the area.
I live locally but with an interest in wildlife I have visited several places around the country where the sea has been allowed to encroach. Places like Pagham and the North Norfolk coast are not muddy swamps but are incredibly beautiful places full of wildlife. I think that the EA plan is an exciting opportunity and the only sensible option for the future.
L Dan on 14 Jul 2009 at 1:12 pm #
Some people on here seem to be unsure what ‘working with nature’ means, so please allow me to explain.
Although the Cuckmere is currently a SSSI because of it’s ecological benefits, the variety of wildlife in grazing fields such as these is rather limited, flooding the estuary will greatly improve the diversity of wildlife in the valley, therefore this is working with nature.
While a few species will be lost, the number gained will far outweigh them. Also of interest is the fact that this habitat is virtually identical to the fields N of Exceat Bridge, so the creatures that live here will not be lost for good, they will simply exist furhter up the valley as they always have done. Think about it, would you rather see a Seal basking on the Mudflats at low tide and a flock of waders 100+ strong take to the sky wheeling over your head as a Peregrine tries to pick its dinner out of them, or sheep in a grassy field exactly the same as the ones on the other side of the A259?
I will leave that up to everyone else to decide…
L Dan on 14 Jul 2009 at 1:45 pm #
There are many claims opposers to the flooding of the cuckmere are putting forward e.g ‘it will cause flooding upriver’ ‘it will destroy local tourism’ ‘the footpaths will all be lost’ ‘the view will be gone forever’ and finally ‘it will flood the A259′. Is there any proof for any of these whatsoever? Footpaths will be lost, yes, but the EA have already promised to build new ones around the side of the Estuary. Some tourists may also be put off, but plenty more interested in wildlife will visit. As a Birder I know that nothing is better after a cold days birdwatching than visiting the nearest pub to you, so the Golden Galleon will make a tidy sum. For tourists you could have boat trips accross the Estuary, or a ropebridge stretching from Haven Brow to Seaford Head to look down on the wildlife below you, or anything else you can think of, the possibilities are endless! Nobody has any proof that the valley will flood upriver, in fact, the Estuary would act as a basin to store water, making it even less likely. At the moment the EA has to move shingle all the time, but after 10 or so years the river would find it’s own way to the sea without shingle blocking it up. The view may be gone forever, but in my opinion the view will improve. At the moment, I feel it looks a bit bland, not as lively as an Estuary could be. And last but not least, they can build flood defences for the A259, but in my opinion we would all be better off if a new, wider road was built over the Estuary, with a smaller road built down to the Golden Galleon. While this may be expensive, it would solve many problems, not to mention the God awful traffic!
Kieran Simkin on 21 Jul 2009 at 4:51 am #
>The full strategy was too large to put on our website, but you can obtain a copy by sending an e-mail to: sokes@environment-agency.gov.uk
Speaking as a web developer, this is a poor excuse. Put the damn thing online!
Mary Norman on 31 Jul 2009 at 6:31 pm #
Hi,
It would seem to me that one of the main issues here is money. This amazing place is I believe not only the heritage of those who live here but of people everywhere. Since the Environmental Agency has placed constraints upon the ‘purse’, might it therefore be prudent to look as far afield possible for support. As Facebook currently has 250 million active users the page idea suggested by someone earlier would seem to me to be a good suggestion.
I am however pleased that doing nothing at Cuckmere Haven is not an option. The Downs and all the surrounding area are the way they are today as the result of thousands of years of man’s impact upon the landscape. Let us preserve this valley and above all the beautiful Cuckmere river meanders for future generations.
richard on 15 Sep 2009 at 6:36 pm #
I think that its a good idea to flood the cuckmere, But im of the opinion of doing this in stages i.e section of the earth floodbanks being removed so creating saltmarsh and mudflats. Then after a period of time reinstate the flow through the meanders, but if nothing is done and suddenly it floods we will have no control over the way it floods. And then maybe some birdwatching hides could be built.
L Dan on 04 Oct 2009 at 11:57 am #
In response to what Mary Norman has said about preserving the meanders, we really would be doing everything and everyone a favour by using mamaged realignment! The meanders are getting silted up because of the lack of water flowing through them, and because of this in the summer they can boil up without clean water runing though them. Have you ever been down there and seen the amount of dead fish that can be seen floating in the meanders? Another fact is that the farmers sheep would surely be better off drinking from a slightly better source of water, as I don’t really want to think about what might be in there!
Mary Norman on 05 Nov 2009 at 7:46 pm #
I agree the meanders are silting up. It does not appear that they are maintained in a way to minimise this at the moment. I recall that the Cuckmere itself was regularly dredged or cleared and the banks built up when I was a child.
Lester Unega Waya on 08 Nov 2009 at 4:28 am #
The Beauty of Nature is in the way it functions.
Nature existed before we did, so what right have we to interfere.
We cannot take from the Earth without giving something back.
Man has taken liberties with the Earth that is why the enviroment
is in the sorry state it is.
Untill we appreciate the Beauty of the Natural landscape, we have
not learnt anything.
Lester Unega Waya on 09 Nov 2009 at 3:07 am #
To work with Nature means live in harmony with Nature.
It is walking with the Earth, not on it.
The way we live is to blame for global warming and the only
way to halt global warming, is to change our ways.
The global warming is Nature responding to the way we live.
We are polluting the Earth and Nature is saying, ‘global warming is
what you want so global warming is what you get’.
The rise in sea levels is the fruits of our labours.
If we carry on as we are we shall have more.
Severn Cullis-Suzuki says it all with her speech at the Rio Earth summit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0&feature=player_embedded
Take five minutes to listen to a child who silenced the world for 5 minutes.