IT appears that recent correspondents have missed the main point.
Despite one denial, the plans as submitted interfere with (remove a portion of) the sea defences along the tidal River Nene above Lime Street and Custom House Street.
Those new sea defences, along with others, were erected by the Environment Agency in 1979 following the inundation on the night of January 11, 1978, when some 60 properties were flooded. The brackish tidal water left salt residues in brickwork, which were not finally removed until many years later.
The sea defences erected in the late 1970s were deemed ‘fit for purpose’, ie were to reduce the likelihood of such a recurrence to 0.5 per cent (meaning a ‘once in 200-year event’).
Nothing should compromise or interfere with those defences, and I suspect (though I am no expert) that the only way the current scheme could progress would be with ‘piling’ on the landward side of the proposed breach in the defences.
Perhaps the apologists who do not appear to live in the immediately affected area, would finally, one and for all, tell us how they propose to mitigate the effects of the proposed reduction in the effectiveness of our defences against tidal inundation.