Once again, the article attempts to propagate the myth that the 2007 flooding in Hull was tidal in nature, when in fact rain water run-off was the cause.
It would seem both the Council and the Water Authorities are still in denial that responsibility lies with them after freshwater drainage systems had been subjected to decades of neglect.
It then attempts to build on these so-called “facts” with further misleading assertions:
“Coastal erosion cannot be dealt with and we should abandon these areas to the sea“, whereas the Dutch have been doing just the opposite for centuries, across the other side of the North Sea.
The simple process of stoning on or around the low water mark, would take the power out of the waves, allowing material currently in suspension to form a beach/barrier, n.b. Apparently this method is good enough for building a new nuclear power station, in this country, at risk of being overwhelmed by a Fukushima style tidal wave!
Here we go again, with the myth that the “Hull Lagoon” is a good idea! This proposal has previously been comprehensively demolished with the paper “Water will always find its’ own level“.
To add insult to injury, the name of Hull University is used to attribute some sort of credibility/expertise to those putting forward these otherwise ludicrous arguments, which are not in the interests of local people or the area.
Then one would be justified in asking which, if any, of these proposals are actually sustainable!
03-03-2022 – Hull flood defence wall costing £42m officially opened – BBC
16-11-2021 – Green light for Queens Gardens’ huge £11.7m transformation – Angus Young, Hull Daily Mail
Hull City Council seems transfixed with ‘shop window dressing’ instead of attending to the basics around the City and once again its’ sustainability credentials are dubious.