Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: steering group to meet tomorrow
It has agreed to consider both the cheapest and the 'technically preferred' options:
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: looking for funding for the 'technically preferred' option 4b
EDDC to look again at funding for £11million Sidmouth seafront option - News - Sidmouth Herald
Below are the personal reflections from the chair of the Futures Forum of the VGS (who is also a member of the BMP steering group), gathered from experts, stakeholders and concerned citizens following the meeting:
Personal
reflections on the meeting
Ostensibly
prudent advice from the consultants (CH2M) closes off any investigation into
their own technically and environmentally preferred recommendation, although
this appears to be the only one that can achieve the aims and objectives of the
BMP. More careful consideration is
needed, starting with comparative modelling.
1.
The
benefits of Option 1 seem to have
been exaggerated.
1.1.
The
“Economic Benefits” of the BMP have been crudely summarised as £85m for every
option, based merely on the current value of properties that might be protected
from the risk of erosion.
1.2.
Explicitly,
the proposals aim to preserve existing amenities but exclude any consideration
of adding to or enhancing amenities over the 100-year life of the project.
1.3.
For
example, the tourism benefits from restoring the eastern beach as an accessible
and sandy amenity have been ignored; and there has been no evaluation of the economic
benefits from improving the main beach that can be achieved by removing the
rock groynes to create large sandy tombolos similar to the western beach behind
the existing rock islands.
2.
The
costs of modelling and of
maintaining Option 1 may have been miscalculated or misrepresented
2.1.
There
is major discrepancy in the estimated costs of the mathematical modelling
needed to provide reliable data, as revealed in conflicting advice reported from
the Environment Agency (£25k to £50k to £120k).
2.2.
The
added costs for maintaining and replacing the west wall of the Sid, as required
for option one, have been deliberately omitted from the total cost analysis on
the grounds that they will be borne exclusively by the Environment Agency (EA)
although we will be looking to the EA for a major part of the partnership
funding.
2.3.
There
is an apparent discrepancy in the estimated maintenance costs. The report splits
the £11m estimated cost of S1 into 78% capital and 22% maintenance, making a
total of £2.42m for maintenance, an average of £24,200 pa over 100 years. The estimated
£19.4m estimated cost of S4 is split as 86% capital and 14% maintenance, making
a total of £2.716m for maintenance, an average of £27,160 pa over 100 years. Clarification
is needed on how the maintenance costs can be more than 12% higher for a
solution that does not require regular artificial recharging and recycling of
beach materials.
2.4.
The
cost of regular recharging of the beach within the context of a 1.2 m rise in
sea-levels, and increasing storms resulting from climate change, and the
inevitable financial crises over the 100 year lifetime of the project may well
be unrealistic.
2.5.
An
early investment in computer modelling should significantly reduce the uncertainty
of long-term planning cost-predictions, which currently include a 60% optimism
bias.
3.
The
risks of Option 1 have been
underestimated
3.1.
What
is the risk that opposition from agencies such as Natural England, East Devon
SAC, WHS, SSI could result in resources wasted on an unrealistic choice? Option
1 proposes a groyne or groynes that the National Trust anticipates will be
orphaned in due course and which Natural England has repeatedly vetoed in the
past.
3.2.
Could
a rock groyne on the eastern beach attached to the toe of the cliffs present a
hazardous obstacle to beach walkers, particularly those approaching from the
east?
3.3.
Would
not cliffs unprotected by a rock revetment or an adequate naturally replenished
beach continue to pose a threat of rock-falls to beach walkers?
3.4.
Would
not a growing reliance on the river wall west of the Sid as the major defence
against both fluvial and tidal flooding not pose an unacceptable risk to
Sidmouth Town in the context of the anticipated rise in sea-level and more
extreme weather conditions during the life of the project?
4.
The
contextual framework has been given
limited consideration
4.1.
Analysis
of Devon County Council's topographical survey at Pennington Point shows an
erosion rate 3.8 times the rate in the baseline coastal process report for the
same place and time period, upon which EDDC consultants CH2M base the entire
project. Evidence to support the claim that this discrepancy will make no
difference is needed.
4.2.
The
range of risks from climate change, financial market movements, and other socio-economic
developments in the 100-year life of the project should not be ignored.
4.3.
The
report gives little weight to SMP2’s clear distinction between a policy of
“Hold the Line” for the town and “Managed Retreat” for the eastern beach. The
BMP needs to find a way to integrate these two objectives at the mouth of the
Sid.
4.4.
The
main recommendation of the 2011 Defra Pathfinder project emphasised the
difficulty and the cruciality of inclusive community engagement in shoreline
management planning.
4.5.
The
on-going Neighbourhood Plan and Eastern Town scoping exercise may provide the
Steering Group with a more comprehensive vision of the town’s economic
potential and other priorities for the life of the project.
5.
Funding Options can be more fully
explored
5.1.
A
7% increase in Council Tax across the District is of course unacceptable but
this is not the only way of paying for option 4 or its variants. Historically, such
major amenities as the Byes, Victoria Hospital, all the places of worship, the
Museum, Town Council building, Peasland Knapp, Blackmore Gardens conservatory etc.
have all been provided by “Voluntary Public Subscription”.
5.2.
The
disappointingly low level of public response to the first round of consultation
requires a more determined re-engagement that could include requests for and
suggestions for funding contributions.
6.
Additional potentially
cost-saving suggestions are worth considering:
6.1.
Would
not appropriate planting and use of vegetation to stabilise cliffs and absorb
ground water (as successfully done in parts of Cumbria) contribute to a long-term
strategy of working with, rather than against, natural forces?
6.2.
Now
that the cliff is not in the SAC and SSSI because it has eroded beyond their
landward boundaries what might be the outcome of a fresh planning application
for a rock revetment at the foot of the eastern cliffs?
6.3.
Has
due consideration been given to the low-tech low-cost reintroduction of
Victorian wooden groynes on the eastern beach?
6.4.
Similarly
on the main beach, could not a few far less visually intrusive traditional
wooden groynes replace the rock groynes to improve shingle retention, while the
rock from these groynes is recycled (in option 4b) to create a third off-shore
breakwater east of the existing ones, as tested by HR Wallingford ca. 1993, to
duplicate the success of the western beach?
7.
Community Endorsement of the preferred
proposal is very distant at present:
7.1.
The
June 2016 attempt at consultation was disappointingly minimal. But there was striking
consensus on certain issues.
7.2.
A
total of 12 people voted for S1; 29 for S4 (or 4b which was added later),
though some respondents appear not to have realised that the fourth options
involved the removal of the rock groynes on the main beach.
7.3.
The
priority reason for choosing any option was “defence from erosion”, on which only
2 respondents preferred S1, while 25 preferred S4 or 4b. It seems that lay
people overwhelmingly believe that reefs rather than groynes offer the best
protection against erosion.
7.4.
It
was noted that respondents wish to see the inclusion of a jetty or harbour as
part of the outline design for the preferred option.
7.5.
The
public seem to have inadequate information on the effects of reefs or
breakwaters as the survey revealed that some “beach users felt that additional
breakwaters would detract from the visual amenity of the beach, and could
create a hazard” despite the evidence from the western beach of the protection
afforded by sandy tombolas popular with families and for water sports.
7.6.
See
the main recommendation of the DEFRA Pathfinder Project of 2011 on the crucial
importance and complex difficulty of full community engagement.
8.
Summary
I hope the Steering Group
will agree to modelling the two main alternative solutions rather than opting
for the least popular and least effective option simply on the grounds that it
appears to be cheaper in the short term. It may of course turn out to be the
only possibility, but we need to be more confident that it will work and that
it will be acceptable to the regulatory
and funding agencies.
There was a genuine
openness to other ideas from the Chairman and the consultants on 17th
August. We need to tap into local wisdom for additional tactics in dealing with
this historic challenge. The next phase of public engagement should stimulate a
socially inclusive conversation informing people better, soliciting funds and
seeking insights into what can be achieved to improve the amenity quality and value of our
beach for residents and visitors alike, as well as to defend the town from
coastal erosion and flooding for generations to come.
Robert Crick,
Chair of the Vision Group for Sidmouth Futures Forum, 24th August
2016
Appendices
A
Relevant quotations from the
report
Aims:
“To
inform a separate scheme for the River Sid that will be led by the Environment
Agency (EA) at a later date.
To
define how the beach management activities will contribute to the
implementation of Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2) policies of ‘Hold the
Line’ and ‘Managed Realignment’.
To
reduce the rate of beach and cliff erosion to the east of the River Sid (East Beach)
in an integrated, justifiable and
sustainable way.
Not
to compromise or adversely impact the integrity of the environmental features
of the Dorset and East Devon UNESCO World Heritage Site, Sidmouth to West Bay
Special Area of Conservation or the Sidmouth to Beer Coast Site of Special
Scientific Interest.”
Proposals
“S4
- Remove
existing beach structures and construct new offshore breakwaters
- Construct
new offshore breakwaters tapering towards the eastern end of the study areas.
The number, position,
size and height of structures would only be known after modelling of the
structures was undertaken as part of detailed design if this option was taken
forward as the preferred option.”
Preferred option
“The
technically preferred option that best achieves the project objectives is
Option S4 and its variants. However, this is also the most expensive option
with the worst economic case. Even under the ‘best case’ scenario (Sensitivity
Test 8), more than £11m of funding contributions would be needed to unlock the
government grant‐in‐aid funding accessed through
the Environment Agency.”
Coastal Processes
“The impact of
constructing the offshore breakwaters at a more oblique angle (consulted on as
Option 4B) ... will be a more mobile beach, with much less stable salients
behind the structures and the development of deeper troughs during southerly
and south easterly storms than compared to more shore‐parallel
structures. This greater beach volatility is due to the minimal protection that
the oblique structures provide against waves from those directions.”
[This dire forecast
on page 32 is then mitigated with the statement later in the same paragraph:]
“... the relative difference in beach
stability behind different offshore breakwater layouts is very much dependent
upon the position, orientation, height, length and spacing of the structures,
relative to the shoreline, and this would require further detailed
investigation should offshore breakwaters (Option S4) be selected as the
preferred option over the other Options S1, S2 and S3.”
[There is no
reference to the successful development of a large sandy tombola behind the
existing reefs or rock islands, but this again shows the necessity for
modelling before this crucial decision is made and large sums of money are
committed.]
B.
Tony Burch’s corrections to the minutes of June 23rd meeting
These were nodded through without discussion. Some
points have important implications for the success or otherwise of bids for
funding and for authorisation from the regulatory authorities in this highly
sensitive area and internationally recognised asset. For example:
“Tony Burch wanted it put
on record that the erosion rate at Pennington Point for 2012 to 2015, based on
Devon County Council's topographical survey was 3.8 times the rate in the
baseline coastal process report for the same place and time period. His
concern was: if the measured erosion rates were out by this much at Pennington
point, then by how much are they out for all the other cliff behavioural
units, and what difference would this make to the findings and the
conclusions in the baseline coastal process report upon which the whole project
is based, including the economics of options which are dependent on erosion
rates? He was also concerned because, if the impact of an option on the
designated sites (SSSI, SAC or WHS) is dependent on the change in the erosion
rate that it beings about, then the before and after rates are needed. In which
case the 'before rates' need to be as good as possible, not least because they
will form part of the evidence base in an Appropriate Assessment which will be
scrutinised very carefully by the regulators and their statutory
consultees. The chairman would take it up with EDDC.”
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: steering group to meet tomorrow
See also:
Streetlife | Scoping Study
Streetlife | Lifeboat
Streetlife | Beach Management Plan..cheapest option, or more effective long-term solution?
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment