326 



Bidterfield : Notes on the Growth of Spurn. 



Shelford, in his paper on the 'Outfall of the Humber,' says 

 that from 1676 to 185 1 the movement was 2,530 yards south, or 

 44 feet per annum, and I find that from 1851 to 1888 the hig-h 

 water line has advanced 600 feet in a southerly direction, or at 

 the rate of 17 feet per annum. 



The westerly movement between 185 1 and 1888 has been at 

 the rate of 8 feet per annum on the east or North Sea side, and 

 17 feet per annum on the west or Humber side, showing- that 

 the Point has increased considerably in width. 



The tide at Spurn flows for six hours and ebbs for six hours. 

 Spring tides reach a level of 10 feet above Ordnance datum at 

 high water, and ebb to a level of 8*8 below Ordnance datum. 

 Neap tides flow to a height of 6*5 feet above Ordnance datum, 

 and ebb to 3*5 feet below Ordnance datum. 



North of Spurn and its sand dunes is the Boulder Clay at 

 Kilnsea Warren. Here the ravages of the sea are more 

 apparent. 



From 1852 to 1888 the erosion has been g'oing on at the 

 average rate of 12 feet per year from Kasington Lane End to 

 this point. 



The writer surveyed this coast in 1898 and found that from 

 1852 to that date the average loss along this stretch of sea front 

 had been at the rate of 10 feet per annum. 



The Blue Bell Inn was built in 1847, distant from the cliff's 

 1,602 feet; in 1852 it was 1,580 feet away. The Ordnance 

 Survey of 1888 shows it 1,110 feet away, and when the writer 

 measured it in 1898 the distance between it and the cliffs was 

 only 1,000 feet. Similarly at Easington Lane End and at the 

 Kilnsea Beacon, the measurements of which are as follows : — 



Loss. Loss. 

 1852-1886. 1 852-1 898. 



Easington Lane End ... 320 feet. ... 420 feet. 

 Kilnsea Beacon ... .. 530 ,, ... 680 ,, 

 This erosion is without doubt a serious matter for owners of 

 land in this neighbourhood, and one cannot but regret that 

 some scheme has not yet found favour for the prevention of this 

 awful waste. 



It has been said that the risk of damage to the Humber by 

 a breach at this place is considerable, but apparently those who 

 hold this opinion do not distinguish between erosion and sub- 

 mersion. That a breach at high water could be made is 

 indisputable, but this would only be a submersion at high water. 



