‘THE GOODWIN SANDS: PLUMBING NEW DEPTHS.

‘The coins just kept spinning out onto to the deck’ commented one of the seamen.

It was a pub conversation and at first I thought he was boasting about his luck on the fruit machine until I realised that he’d just paid off a vessel chartered by Dover Harbour Board (DHB) to dredge the Goodwin Sands off the Kent coast.I am fairly sure that the year was 1976, the dredge in question an exploratory project to extract sand and gravel for construction of Dover’s Eastern docks.

It seems that the seabed deposits held hundreds of coins from the East India Company ship Admiral Gardner, lost in a storm in 1809 –  the coins themselves were copper destined to be used in EIC businesses in Madras, India.I didn’t pay much attention to this sea story until reading a 1985 newspaper report which listed investigations by divers that revealed not hundreds, but many thousands of these coins, plus cannons, tools and jewellery; in fact, there were wooden barrels full of the coins – one allegedly holding 28,000 of them.

The ‘coin-treasure’ editorials had been widely-read, no doubt furthering folks’ knowledge of Goodwin.But by this time DHB were  committed to large-scale exploitation of sand and gravel use in on-going construction of Dover Eastern docks. No archaeological surveys were done nor any environmental impact assessment (EIA) to predict what effect removal of 10 mn cubic metres of sand would have upon the marine environment.Anyway, stuff from the wreck continued to be brought up – valuable or not.However, regulations have now changed and so has public awareness, but unfortunately Dover Harbour Board has not moved with the times and still consider Goodwin a convenient low-cost sand and gravel supply; their latest venture this time is to dredge sand to extend Dover’s Western docks into a cargo and distribution centre, shops, apartments and a private marina.An ambitious plan alright, but with one natural resource right on the doorstep for them.

In comparison to Dover’s White Cliffs, Goodwin Sands are probably not as iconic, but is famous in literature and verse, being mentioned both in Shakespeare’s King John and Ian Fleming’s Moonraker.So very much part of Britain’s identity with place: a 10-mile long sandbank lying off Deal, the sand itself is of a fine shifting nature which has treacherously laid victim to 2000 ships, scores of military planes and even two submarines.

The sand is stable enough to stand on at low tide, but once the tide races in they become quicksands – the saturated granules no longer supporting any weight.Which of course, gives rise to its local designation – the ‘ship swallower’ – the surface changing from firm to a quivering trap of quicksand.In fact it shifts so spontaneously that the wreck of U48, a WW1 submarine sunk on the Sands mysteriously surfaced over the years since – only to yet sink again. Also reappearing, ghost-like, has been the wreck of HMS Stirling Castle lost in a huge storm in 1703.The Stirling Castle emerged last four decades ago exposing her oak timbers almost to her keel before disappearing again from plain sight.Clearly, the Sands are a site of archaeological fascination, but more relevantly an area of war graves.

Over a dozen Spitfires and Hurricanes ditched here, and in 1940 a Dornier 17 aircraft was shot down, but located and recovered eight years ago.I’m not sure how permission was granted to the salvors, because as the maritime war graves of 80 British, Allied and German airmen lost in the Battle of Britain have their exact locations unknown, these 80 casualties cannot gain protection under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, that legislation which safeguards shipwrecks, airplane crashes and battlefields from salvors.Simply put, the sands and currents could have shifted the remains anywhere within the area.And unfortunately, thousands upon thousands of the remains of drowned seafarers from merchant and warships have equally no reliance on the Act either.So at this point, it is sad that some people would only associate Goodwin Sands with media reports of a hoard of comparatively low-value coins (these actually sell on eBay for around £40 each – check it out!), but it is even sadder that DHB has decided to proceed with dredging no matter what the social, historical and environmental costs may be.

There are alternative Channel dredging areas, but it seems that the Admiral Gardner’s copper coins symbolises DHB’s plan to cut costs, ie., the colour of their project money involves going for the least-cost option – save a few pennies, perhaps?Nonetheless, following a two-year consultation the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) granted Dover Harbour Board a licence to dredge 4 mn tonnes of aggregate in July 2018.After which the Harbour Board immediately received more fierce criticism and opponents state the following will ensue upon dredging:

1) disturbance of war graves

2) destruction of ecosystems including plankton, fish stocks and a colony of 500 grey seals

3) loss of important archaeological remains

4) erosion of natural sand barriers protecting the coast

Opposition included both Deal and Dover councils whose agenda centred upon coastal erosion, plus various non-government organisations specifically Goodwin Sands SOS (http://www.goodwinsandsos.org.uk), a concerned group of local citizens who launched a judicial review against the dredge claiming that the study which was conducted by Royal Haskoning DHV was ‘flawed.’

Royal Haskoning, a Dutch project management company which also published feasibility studies for the Nicaragua Canal as well as the Palm Jebel Ali ventures, maintains its research is sound.Unfortunately for the UK government though, the decision to grant a dredge licence was given at the same time as it established Marine Protection Areas (MPA’s) – this latter legislation is supposed to protect offshore resources such as the Goodwin.So it would seem Downing Street ill-timed this indeed.Despite this, Dover Harbour Board are not free to just take marine aggregate from the Goodwin Sands. This has to be negotiated with the Crown Estate who, of course, have to be paid by DHB.So here we have two UK government departments with different agendas and aims: one to promote sustainability within MPA’s, whilst another – Crown Estates – is to to further treasury income by granting dredging licences.

The ‘flaws’ quoted in Royal Haskoning’s report involved an omission by DHB to include the remains of two WW2 planes, plus some shipwrecks buried deep in the sand which is the evidence that conservation groups hoped would win their appeal for them.At the appeal, this disclosure was not successful, but if we do let DHB off the hook for this one then it has to be said that their environmental and sustainability culture is little more than ‘greenwash.’No doubt they will say that shipping aggregate a few miles from the sea to extend construction  is a better option than hundreds of lorries delivering the same; but one could say that their decision to restrict foot passenger bookings through the ferry terminal is hardly sustainable, ie., the Board’s Cross-Channel ferries appear only open to vehicle traffic as from January 2021. (1)

Which can only lessen poor air quality caused by traffic congestion within the port area, not to mention DHB’s green credentials.But let’s not stray too far off-topic here, and whilst DHB maintains that the dredge will not impact on any of the above four points, its Royal Haskoning Environmental Statement quotes that ‘established best practice [for marine aggregate dredging] is to avoid any potential sensitive habitat, species, or archaeological features.’ (1)

In which case, given the constantly moving sands, that would include all of the Goodwin.For anyone on a suction dredger knows that these things don’t understand what is potentially sensitive – they suck and lift anything which is on the seabed, only stopping when something large jams in the pipe.This is the practical experience of seamen – not office beancounters – but perhaps the following comment from filmactor Sir Mark Rylance (he played the skipper of one of Dunkirk’s little ships) sums it up by criticising the project as ‘disrespectful’ and ‘insulting’: ‘ I wonder what the outcry would be in England if France announced it was going to dredge Dunkirk sands to make concrete and other building products.’ (2)

Swiftly, there was a scathing rebuke from the Port of Dover: ‘it is inappropriate to compare Dunkirk Evacuation with a small dredge of Goodwin Sands – which have been dredged numerous times since the war.’ (3)

Well, maybe they have been dredged ‘numerous times’ but it’s not too late to learn about respect is it?

1)  Royal Haskoning DHV, Victoria Cooper, Goodwin Sands Environmental Statement, Vol II,      Outcome EIA, 16.05.2016 (accessed 01.05.2021)

2) Guardianonline, Sir Mark Rylance criticises…… 07.08.2017 (accessed 06.05.2021)

3) Mailonline, The New Battle of Goodwin Sands…. 06.08.2017 (accessed 07.05.2021)