Record of inspection:
DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY
Cromwell Harbour Walls
THOSE PRESENT
PJ/AS/RH
30 November 2012
Introduction
Following concerns expressed by the Dunbar Fishermen’s Association (DFA) at the
condition of the Cromwell Harbour walls and their ongoing maintenance, Alasdair Swan
(AS) for the Dunbar Harbour Trust (DHT)(Link Group) arranged to meet with Peter
Johnstone (PJ) (Chair of DFA) for an informal review of same.
AS and PJ were joined by Robin Hamilton (DHT), retired engineer.
Pippa Swan, who has experience of historic structure conservation, was invited to assist in
recording found conditions.
The weather was clear, sunny and cold and the tide was low.
The DFA have made a request to East Lothian Council (ELC) that Murray Hutchison, former
ELC engineer, be asked to prepare an independent report on the harbour walls. At the time
of writing, it is not known when or if this work will be forthcoming but PJ suggested that
DFA would continue to liaise directly with ELC over this.
This laymen’s record is made to assist further discussion and planning of appropriate and
cost effective remedial works over the next five years. It is intended to be read with and to
inform further investigations that may be carried out by experts, if this is deemed
appropriate.
General Condition
The walls are constructed of a
mix of stones and bonds and
have been repaired in many
places over the years with
stone, brick, tile and concrete.
Pointing, where it remains, is
either
a
lime
mix
or
sand/cement mix.
The basic form of construction
is of an outer and inner face of
massive, bonded masonry
with a rubble type fill to the
heart of the sea defence. A
masonry parapet wall is
constructed off the outer face
of the sea wall . The sea wall
is cobbled on the traffic wear
surfaces to the harbour side.
Between positions 8 + 9 on Key Plan
Parapet Wall
The parapet wall, exposed to the weather from both sides, is in relatively poor condition
along its length with many stones eroded beyond repair. The cope detail has been repaired
with differing materials over time but is badly broken down in many areas. There are some
voids through the wall where daylight is visible.
Approximate extent of parapet – seaward side
Sea Wall – Seaward Side
The main sea defence wall varies
in condition from relatively good
to poor (see key plan below).
There are widespread areas
where pointing has been washed
out but where the stones have
stayed stable.
There are areas of bulging but it
is not immediately obvious if
this is as a result of the method
of construction in the section of
wall or if the outer skin has
moved away from the fill
material.
PJ reported that there were
instances when water is seen to
be pumping and/or running
through the harbour wall from
the sea side to the harbour side.
Particular attention was paid to
the inspection of sea wall in
these approximate locations and
it seemed that there was a
correlation
between
visible
voids in the seaward face of the
wall and water entry positions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
KEY TO FOUND WALL CONDITIONS
5. Collapsed/eroded concrete sheath
1. Poor at high level
6. Voids
2. Poor condition
7. Poor condition with voids
3. Stone missing + conc delaminating
8. Bulge
4. Poor condition with open joints
9. Voids at low level
(wall onto Shore Road)
10. Poor condition
11. Poor condition with voids
Notional positions of
12. Poor condition with voids
reported water transgress
Concrete sheathing collapsed/eroded
Examples of voids
Example of poor condition
with voids (above dotted
line)
Missing masonry and
concrete delamination
Example of poor condition
with open joints
Example of poor condition
with open joints
Slipway break up
Following the inspection it was agreed that:
1. A record would be made of the inspection
2. DFA would try to pursue the possibility of a further inspection by Murray Hutchison
3. Robin Hamilton would endeavor to collate information on recent repairs to both
harbours so that a record could be made of same in one document.
4. DFA/DHT would consider a plan whereby the fishermen could log any concerns they
have about the condition of harbour walls. Of particular interest and concern would
be instances where water was seen running/spouting from the walls in either
harbour. The intention would be that this log would be regularly reviewed and a
plan agreed to tackle critical repair issues. It was accepted that any repairs would
have to be subject to the availability of funding.
5. Robin Hamilton would review the wall at the harbour entrance (east _ opposite
Harbour Master’s Office) where Peter Johnstone reported the sighting of pigeons
entering/leaving. This is a longstanding condition.
6. This record would be offered to DHT for consideration along with any other relevant
information provided by consultants and harbour users in respect of wall conditions.
Funding permitting, it was anticipated that a plan would be promoted for ongoing
maintenance and repair.
Pippa Swan
6.12.12