912 nErouT — 1888. 



purposes, notwithstanding a notice forbidding its removal, in front of the Archbishop 

 of Canterbury's property, and the attention of the authorities at Deal should be called 

 to this pernicious practice.' 



The works I should recommend to be first executed at the Castle, viz., the altera- 

 tions of the groynes, and the paving of the two centre bays, would probably amount 

 in the aggregate to 450Z., and if the moat were partially filled and two sea sluices 

 were added a further sum of lOOZ. would be required. 



The works at Batterj' No. 1, exclusive of sea walls, would cost 1007. 



Sea walls behind the mole of beach would cost, say. 300?. for the Castle frontage, 

 but these would be useless without being continued as the beach retrpated. 



From the way in which the shingle is now travelling, I consider that no system 

 of groyning will produce any permanent benefit, and would only lead to disappoint- 

 ment. 



In the event of a continued recession of the coast-line, and no steps being taken 

 by the landowners for its protection, it may ultimately be necessary to abandon the 

 sea faces at Sandown Castle and Battery No. 1 ;- but after a very careful consideration 

 of the question, I should recommend the execution of the proposed w^orks in the first 

 instance.' 



Before determining on the character or extent of works, it appears necessary to 

 ascertain the views of the adjoining landowners. 



As the wind had been blowing for ten days or a fortnight from the southward and 

 westward I again visited the Castle on the Loth instant, and found a large lower 

 ' full ' of shingle had been thrown up from Sandown Esplanade to the Castle, and a 

 considerable quantity of shingle had collected in the north and south bays, in the 

 former of which the 'full' of shingle was highest on the south side of the north 

 gro5'ne, showing the motion had been reversed ; the beach around these groynes was, 

 however, being quickly drawn away by the change of wind to N.W. on the 14th. 



I have the Imnour to be, Sir, 



Your very obedient Servant, 

 (Signed) J. B. Rkdman. 



2. SHEERNESS SEA-DEFENCES. 

 To Major Jervois, Jl.K 



5 New Palace Tnrd, Westminster, S.W., Augutt 20, 1857. 



SlB, On the 3rd instant I was favoured with your instructions from the War 



Office to survey the sea wall which bounds the property of the War Department at 

 Sheerness, and to report, for the information of the Secretary of State for War. the 

 mode in which I would recommend the works of renewal of the groynes, which form 

 a tjart of these defences, should be carried out, and for which a sum had been voted 

 in^the Estimates for this year. 



I accordingly proceeded to Sheerness on the 5th instant, as you stated it was 

 desirable I should report as earlj' as possible, and from the 5th to the 8th instant 

 carefully examined the coast from Garrison Point on the west to East End Station, 

 eastward, and was furnished by the Commanding Royal Engineer officer (Colonel 

 Montagu) with every information and assistance 1 could desire. 



The prevalent motion of the shingle on this line of coast is from the eastward, 

 the result of which is a very large accumulation, forming a spit on the eastern side 

 of the entrance to the Med way called Garrison Point. This has gone on increasing, 

 as evidenced on the ground by the fact that the glacis of the eastern bastion is now 

 rendered needless as a sea defence from the large accumulation of shingle in front or 

 to seaward of it, and the same remark applies to the glacis round the works at 

 Garrison Point. It appears, from the plans of Sheerness in your possession there, 

 that in 1737 the end of the shingle spit was half a mile east of Garrison Point ; and 

 the same plan describes the then termination of the spit as ' growing beach,' and 

 defines the amount that had then recently grown up from the eastward to the west- 



' [Deal authorities subsequently exhibited notices, also Her Majesty's Board of 

 Works.] 



» [This, in effect, is now the case, March 1862.] 



' [Not done. Consequences, retreat 100 feet of beach N. of Castle and flooding in 

 December 1862 of marshes up to the railway.] 



