Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Clearing mud

Port developments in the southeast in the 1990s resulted in the loss of 'Intertidal Habitat' (mud).

The European Court ruled that this be made good by substitution.

As a result, £7.5M was spent at Wallasea Island on the river Crouch in creating 110 hectares of new Intertidal Habitat at a cost of about £68,000 per hectare.

I have previously speculated that at the Rochester Riverside development in Medway new "mud" is being created at a cost of perhaps £10M per hectare. No confirmation of this figure was forthcoming,
it being deemed "commercially sensitive information".

I now read in NCE that at Dartford Creek £3.2M is being spent not in this case to create "mud" but to prevent it being created naturally! Could The Environment Agency explain its policy?

Was it not possible to allow mud accretion at Dartford to occur and set this against
the deficit at Rochester, so saving great sums of money?


Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.