Talk:Romney Marsh

Untitled
I felt that the article as it stood had many fairly basic misconceptions:
 * the Marsh covers both Kent & East Sussex
 * it is made up of several parts
 * its geophysical factors - ie the joint effects of the shingle build-up and man's intervention were not appreciated: flooding is NOT the chief cause of its coming into being as was hinted at, quite the opposite.

It also merely mentioned the importance of sheep; and the military presence.

I have also added a couple of new sections.

There may well be things that could now be added to some of the sections, which of course is anyone's prerogative!!!!

Peter Shearan 07:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Windfarms
There are, obviously, two sides to this argument, it would be good if you could 'reference' any points e.g David Bellamys statement or DTI reports. I'm interested in where the Brenzett school report came from.

The arguments about windfarms are not unique to the Marsh, however I was concerned about the changes that had been made what I originally wrote on this subject, the changes misrepresent the factual position. I have redrafted this section with a link to a relevant website. There is a reference on this site to the cynical manipulation of school children by opponents of the windfarm.

I think that opponents of windfarms tend to misunderstand arguments in the environmental community about windfarms, 'environmentalists' are generally in favour of renewable energy and any difference of opinion is generally about siting. I have addded a reference to an interesting piece of Danish research on this issue. I have added a few links to news articles and other websites to add background to the wind farm issue. this is controversially locally, and as Polly Toynbee's article makes clear, may be influenced by the 4 old fashioned nuclear reactors on the Marsh, at Dungeness.

I am disappointed that a vandal has been let loose on this page and removed many of my referenced points from the article about the windfarm and the landscape. I guess he has not been to other parts of the UK or worked as a professional in landscape and conservation, otherwise he would not have posted some of his comments. There are two sides to an arguement but removing science - poor. he says that most people in the Uk are against windfarms on Romney Marsh, no evidence is given! in fact most people in the Uk are in favour. the problem with siteing is that due to the open nature of the UK planning process in the Uk un-representative 'local' groups hijack arguments and, in most cases, mis-represent the arguments.

In terms of landscape, Romney marsh is a working landscape, it always has been, its just that some who oppose are not landscape historians and only have the rosy glow of memory to support their 'argument'. __ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ REPLY to the above Comment:

The fallacy of the above is demonstrated in its very wording, by stating "most people in the UK are in favour" tacked onto the sentence about Romney Marsh, and also by suggestion his or her article is well referenced. Firstly, there is no evidence anywhere in his writing, let alone any references in support, that most people inthe UK are in favour of the Romney Marsh project. It is an obvious truism (and there has never been any suggestion against the proposition) that most people in the UK support windfarms and indeed it can be said it is a misnomer of him to suggest there is an anti-windfarm lobby. The argument is about the ''siting of the windfarm. This is the issue. The person making the amendments seems to avoid this and simply try to deal with whether windfarms are a good or bad thing, and to prevent argument and counter argument to be presented on this page as to the only issue, which is as to siting.

Of course Romney Marsh is a working environment as I am happy to agree. The problem with the previous person's commentary and amendments is that he uses that description to then imply it can be destroyed - does he suggest therefore that Fords Dagenham should therefore be implicity allowed to set up on Romney Marsh because its a working landscape ?. Of course not. He may simply not like the landscape of gentle and rare countryside, and certain other exceptional features of Romney Marsh - that's his right (his comparisions with bland features of Lincolnshire seem to  suggest his lack of knowledge of much of the Romney Marsh and its surrounding area - but that's his right). His use of terms such as "rosy glow of memory" "vandal" "some local" are as unhelpful in debate as his apparent arrogance in relying on the term "professional".

Sadly, the article on the siting of the windfarm on Romney Marsh has now been reduced to a bland formulaic pro-windfarm advert, with no insight into the issue as to its siting.

cb 24/8/06

comments on the above. I apologise about some of my comments, I had initially tried to be informational in the piece i added, but many of the changes were plain wrong.Given the type of changes that had been made, it was useful to ensure that the reader had adequate background to the issues.

I guess that the person above has not followed the references I have provided on public attitudes and to the nature of much of much of the oppostion. the siting issue was considered by the enquiry and the Government made, in my view, the right decision. The Marsh is flat and there is little in the way of obstruction to cause turbulence, ideal conditions for a windfarm. This is one of the reasons that offshore windfarms are are now being built. The only scientific grounds that were relevant was the the effect it might have on the SSSI through birdstrike, science from Denmark (another deleted link) has shown that this had been overstated as a risk to populations. Turbines are a threat to sea eagles and other long lived species that replenish population levels slowly. The other key wildlife interest on the Marsh are the plants and inverts that live in the ditches, hard to see how the windfarm will damage these! The real threat to Marshland ecology comes from vehicles and modern farming.

I am a Marsh resident and I love the landscape - its why I live here after all, but I have also lived elsewhere in the UK and have a realistic view about the impact this development will have on the landscape. I would object to siting this kind of development in the Weald AONB or parts of the Sussex or Kent Downs, for example. I have also lived in Lincolnshire, which in certainly not uniformly 'bland' and can be 'grand' and un-bland, anyone who has seen how impressive the Wolds look from the Rheatic cliffs near Gainsborough will agree, as will anyone who has enjoyed the seascapes of the Wash or the Wolds themselves. On the Marsh, I love the coast and the views back to Kent and the views from the Isle of Oxney, no one,apart from the owner, could say that they enjoy looking at the large arable fields full of wheat or potatoes and the large dust clouds they produce at harvest time or claim that they are unique ? Harvest Dust is also a problem in Lincolnshire!

Anyone who has studied landscape issues, as I have, will realise that peoples views are not scientific and very subjective. As an example, Ruskin railed against the Monsall vaiduct in the Peak district when they built the railway in the 19th century, this is now one of the main tourist attractions in the Peak park. I would certainly not advocate building a car factory here and a windfarm does not have the implications for land that such a development would. However, the closure of the Potato factory, due to the loss of the Tesco contract, was a body blow to many in New Romney and I am sure that the unemployed in the local towns (often from families that used to work on the land) could be persuaded to support any development that brought jobs to the area. I think that this is being exploited by the owner of the airport to hugely expand operations there, again, this is a real threat to the Marsh.

In my view, local politicians did zero research when they took up their position on the windfarm issue and listened to a few activists and certainly did not consult thoroughly with their electorate. Shepway (I think) ignored the advice of their planning officials. I do not recall being consulted by my local Town council (for which I pay a huge annual amount on my council tax) when they said 'we' opposed the development and would question how representative their views were of 'us'. I noted that local politicians are also supportive of the airport development, a real threat.

sheep
took out this paragraph (from Romney Marsh sheep) which seems to have nothing to do with sheep


 * If you cut a cake in half, it is no longer a cake but two halves. If you cut it again in quarters, it is only four quarters. The Marshes are unique, one of the few truely undeveloped areas left in the UK, of outstanding natural beauty.
 * By diminishing the its value by arguing for its future in terms of fair debate, you are trivialising it as an environment and an experience. It is being divided and quartered by the argument and imposition of these windmills, and what was one of the truly honest areas of undeveloped natural space has been violated by the vulgarity of commercial interests which are excessive in their presence, and demonstrate a lack of empathy with the environment. Sometimes lack of compromise is the most benificial contribution. My experience of this wonderful area has been devalued, and I feel abused by it. Place the windmills out in the sea - let the birds have their place unmolested. If you have to have these machines, place them in town centres, serving those who need the energy, and who have little interest in nature. Perhaps by the Tesco store in Ashford would be a more appropiate area.

09:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

iN MY HUMBLE OPINION
I am puzzled by wind farms on land, they seem ineffective when compared to wind at sea. the power generated tend's to be quite insignificant when compared with the expense to build the 300 feet windmills, 26 of then you know.

Appearence...Well they could be considered bland when compared to a wooden grain windmill but then romney marsh is bland, flat and also unique and exciting.

You get the idea that you could walk forever and still be no closer to your destination. Just as on land wind farms are apparently no closer to solving electricty problems. (PAUL Mcd pa1mcd@yahoo.co.uk)

Basic question
Why "the" Romney Marsh - I've known the area since I was a kid, and it's never been called "the" Romney Marsh, it has always had its own proper noun, "Romney Marsh". Maelli (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs a map
I came here to see where Romney Marsh was, and had to go elsewhere to find a map. For any location article, a map should the the first thing on the list. MarkinBoston (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree. An article about a geographic area with no map is fairly pointless. Incidentally, in the 'Reclamation' section there is a link to a map that sounds very interesting ("NB a map in the *Romney Marsh Gazetteer shows the stages clearly."), but this link goes to the Tesco broadband site! More pointless vandalism? I can't find any such Romney Marsh Gazetteer, so I have been unable to restore the link. I hope someone can do so soon as I'd very much like to see this map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.182.192 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a map. As you seem interested would you like to have a go at adding more info into the info box? Just click edit this page and look for  {{Infobox UK place --Aspro (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)