Wharf Road report - not peer reviewed

Dear Editor, Having another like minded person review your written work is NOT peer review. A definition of peer review is: of, or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication or funding. Angus Jackson is certainly a qualified coastal engineer but has not undertaken his own detailed research on the Wharf Road location. He has only reviewed the available data provided to him by Mr Sethi. There are so many hazard and other factors he has not taken into account. The major hazard identified by the 2001 CHMP for the Wharf Road precinct is ocean inundation as a result of high astronomic tides combined with storm surge, together with minor Clyde river flooding effects. Additional wave setup in the inner bay, plus wave run-up over-topping the low foreshore adds to the hazard... Based on the latest levels determined by WMA (2008), coastal inundation poses a serious current risk to existing development along the Wharf road strip. The back beach area would be inundated and further exacerbated by wave run-up. Future sea level rise would increase the frequency of inundation events... Angus Jackson's review of Mr Sethi's desktop analysis concludes that, "the coastal processes at the site are complex, but there is sufficient data to to indicate that reclamation or protection of the submerged land along Wharf road is technically feasible and economically viable'. However, until all hazard factors are taken into consideration this statement has little credibility. Furthermore, the submerged Wharf Road land is no longer under private ownership. And, how could such an enormous and costly project be justified and funded. What long term benefit would it have for the community? Lucy Name and address supplied