CLIFF
FALL DEFENCE
3rd February
SIR -
There are probably few, if any, still in post at East Devon District Council
(EDDC) who remember and were involved in the Sidmouth Sea Defence Scheme.
Similarly, many who now live in Sidmouth have come here since the completion of
the scheme and know nothing of how it came into being, nor the conditions that
preceded its building.
The
conditions then prevailing were very wet, windy winters, which, as today,
resulted in serious cliff falls, following on a long period of relative
stability. There is one proven fact that needs to be remembered - Sidmouth’s
sandstone cliffs fall at an average rate of 60 feet per 100 years. This rate
may be erratic in the short term going up and down as conditions vary, but the
fact is there is an average rate.
This is
not some figure which is a guess, but came from a world renowned authority on
coastal erosion and shingle movement, who was Emeritus Professor of Geography
at King’s College, London. I have withheld his name on purpose because I do not
have his consent to reveal it, but I can tell you he lives not very far away
and has known Lyme Bay over a long period.
When the
Sea Defence Scheme was proposed there was very serious concerns that it might
produce adverse effects elsewhere along the coast and this was a serious
concern to the National Trust who own long stretches of cliff land close to
Sidmouth, and it was they who brought in the professor to assess the scheme and
give an opinion. I had been on the committee which helped the trust to buy much
of the land close to Sidmouth in 1986 and by the time of the Sea Defence Scheme
was a member of the National Trust Regional Committee for Devon and Cornwall,
so was in a position to know exactly what the professor said and recommendations
made.
The
professor very much regretted that no research had been done to actually track
where and how Sidmouth’s shingle moves, something which had just become
possible as a result of work at Southampton University.
The trust
raised the question of coastal erosion and cliff falls affecting their land.
This led the trust to adopt a policy of managed natural retreat, but they asked
the direct question “could anything be done to slow the rate of cliff fall
taking the land”.
The
professor set out the causes of the problem and a possible partial solution,
which I believe needs to be brought into the public domain because it could
well offer something other than a lot more very expensive hard engineering.
Our
cliffs are composed of layers of relatively soft permeable sandstone and
impervious greensand. When it rains the topsoil absorbs the water and it soaks
down into the sandstone until it reaches the greensand where it can go no
further. This results in a huge increase in the weight of the cliffs. Just
think of the weight of a litre bottle of milk and there are literally thousands
of those absorbed into the sandstone, vastly increasing the weight of the
cliffs which are inherently unstable. Then there is the affect of frost and sun
and add to this the vibrations of the sea at the base of the cliff and here is
the recipe for cliff falls. The cliffs do not fall from the bottom, the sea
causes only relatively slow erosion of the sandstone, they fall from the top
and the greatest weight of water is in those top layers. Where the water can
find its way downhill it drains down to the lowest level causing problems of
exacerbated falls there.
The main
necessity is to get the water out of the cliffs to reduce their weight and the
effects of frost and sun. The simplest way to achieve this is by means of a
straight forward land drainage scheme utilising perforated plastic pipe laid in
the top soil at regular intervals and following the contour, the water picked
up at the landward end and piped away for disposal. The scheme would apparently
have to extend landward for two to three fields and would have to include
gardens too since they absorb rain also. The result would be a much reduced
rate of cliff fall, possibly as much as 50 per cent. If the figure was applied
to the rate of fall, 60 feet per 100 years, it could possibly reduce it to just
30 feet, or half the present rate! Because of the friable nature of the cliffs,
falls could never be eliminated, hence the trust’s adoption of ‘managed
retreat’.
This,
compared to other schemes, is relatively cheap to implement and in view of the
current problems would seem to be well worth putting in place.
Incidentally,
something which EDDC seem conveniently to have forgotten is that one of the conditions
imposed in the grant of Government funding for the 1994 Sea Defence Scheme was
that EDDC were required under that contract to top up Sidmouth beach with fresh
supplies of shingle every six years! To my knowledge not a pebble has been
added to the beach by EDDC in the 16 years since the completion of the Sea
Defence Scheme in December 1995.
Julia
Creeke
A young film-maker has the same opinion: record heavy rains in 2012 saturated the cliff tops:
x
Sidmouth Cliff falls by adr films - YouTube
But others disagree - and so the debate in the letters pages continues:
STABILITY
NEEDED
10th
February
D Pedder
(letters, January 25) asks whether we, as householders on Cliff Road, would be
prepared to donate the necessary length of our gardens to allow the cliff top
to be angled to stop further falls.
In 2002,
when the council was proposing a rock revetment at the base of the cliffs and
re-profiling at the top, the residents unanimously agreed to give up the
necessary 15 metres of garden to allow this to be done.
Since
then we have all lost about that length anyway – I personally have lost 15
metres since 2007, a fact verifiable from professional surveys.
Whilst we
might have qualms about giving up a further similar amount, I have no doubt
that if this was to lead to stability then we would be prepared to do so.
Julia
Creek (letters, February 1) states that the cliff only falls from the top, the
sea causing relatively little erosion.
If that
were the case then the cliffs would not be vertical but would slope back.
There is
erosion from both the top and the bottom.
If her
proposal for a land drainage scheme could help prevent erosion from the top,
then we would of course be very interested.
However,
Sidmouth Town Council removed the drainage from Alma Field, which was helping
prevent erosion from our gardens, in the 1990s and it has not been replaced.
And I am
not sure where her estimate of a current erosion rate of 60 feet in 100 years
originates – at present we can show by professional survey that it is at least
1.5 metres a year or about 500 feet in 100 years – up from 10 cms a year
between 1880 and 1990 (source: Royal Haskoning Report 2009).
This is
an increase of about 15 times since the groynes to protect the Sidmouth
frontage were installed in 1995.
Her
estimate of a current erosion rate of less than a foot a year would be very
heaven indeed.
Paul
Griew
Leader
Cliff
Road Action Group
A
SENSIBLE IDEA
10th
February
In reply
to Julia Creeke’s letter in the Herald last week, I would like to support her
suggestion of drainage at the top of the cliffs at Pennington Point.
Her
knowledge and history of the Sea Defence Scheme and her information from the
professor of geology make this scheme common sense.
We all
realise that the cliffs are falling from the top and the cause that has speeded
all this up has been the enormous amount of rain we have had over the last few
months.
We also
realise that we have to expect a certain amount of natural erosion.
We also
know that something has to be done at Pennington Point to avoid the possibility
of erosion that in a massive storm could put the town at risk of flooding.
However,
what we need now is action, not years of studies.
I hope
the district council will take on board Miss Creeke’s ideas so that this very
common sense suggestion is not overlooked by the Beach Management Board.
Councillor
Maggie Baldwin
FACTORS
INFLUENCING CLIFF EROSION!
17th
February
SIR - As
a civil engineer it is with mounting disquiet that I read recent letters in the
Herald recommending a drainage scheme to address cliff erosion to the east of
Sidmouth. Clearly this suggestion is well-intentioned but I fear it
demonstrates a lack of understanding of the mechanics of coastal erosion.
Coastal
erosion is a process driven by marine action. Thus it proceeds from the bottom
up, not vice-versa. In other words, the root cause of the instability is the
destruction of the cliff face at beach level. That is what is determining the
rate of erosion. What is happening in the soft deposits overlying the rock is a
side issue. It is a process which would be self-limiting if the supporting rock
wasn’t continually being removed by the sea.
If public
funds are used to address the problem they must be directed at mitigating the
effects of the destructive marine action occurring at the foot of the cliffs.
Needless to say, solutions must be based on sound engineering principles.
Incidentally,
regarding the estimate of the current erosion rate quoted by P Griew (Opinion,
February 8), I would suggest that extrapolating from 1.5 metres per year to 500
feet per 100 years is highly questionable as it assumes constant conditions.
Clearly
many factors could be influencing the rate. A crucial one for example is the
natural variability in the erosion resistance of the rock. The quality of the
rock that is presently under attack is poor. It exhibits not just the usual
‘horizontal’ planes of weakness associated with sedimentary rock, but also
frequent vertical fractures. Thus, currently the sea is not so much eroding the
rock but plucking out large blocks.
P Griew
implies that an apparent fifteen-fold increase in erosion rate has been caused
by installation of the breakwaters. It is difficult to envisage how they could
produce such a massive effect. Have other potential explanations, such as
varying quality of the rock, and therefore the nature of the erosion process,
been considered?
David
McCluskey
High
Tide @ Sidmouth near alma bridge - YouTube
And another notices that all the beach has disappeared under the eastern cliffs - perhaps caused by the 'new' groynes...
Pennington Point, Sidmouth - the erosion continues - YouTubeAnd another notices that all the beach has disappeared under the eastern cliffs - perhaps caused by the 'new' groynes...
CLIFF
PROBLEM
10th
March
SIR - Re:
East Cliff Erosion. I doubt very much that replacement of the former drainage
system above the East Cliff as detailed in the letter by Julia Creeke to the
Sidmouth Herald Feb 1, 2013, by itself, will be sufficient to slow the cliff
slumping.
I believe
it would need to be done in conjunction with re-establishing the East Beach to
something resembling its historic self.
The fact
that the eroding cliff face is essentially vertical suggests that the sea level
portion of the cliff face is not as resistant to erosion as the sandstone of
the West Cliff.
If I
recall correctly from the Promenade Jurassic Coast Information Kiosk there is a
discontinuity in the geology between the east and west cliffs, which may mean
that the more erosion resistant geology is below sea level along the East
Beach.
Since
there is little or no beach below the cliffs, there is little to reduce the
force of the waves on the cliff base. In stormy weather, this impact will cause
vibrations (however small) at the base that will eventually increase the
instability of the soil/rock structure above.
Thus, the
first form of action should be to either re-establish the East Beach or the
installation of some other barrier to arrest the force of wave action on the
cliff base.
The re-establishment
of the cliff top drainage system to reduce the weight of water in the profile
should then be considered. This would also reduce the potential for surface
flow over the edge of the cliff.
It should
be noted that while the suggested drainage system will reduce the amount of
water flowing into the upper profile it will not reduce the lateral flow from
the area outside the drainage system boundaries, and thus may not significantly
reduce the volume of water saturating the profile immediately above the
greensand or any other impermeable layer within the profile.
R W
Borden, London
And finally, a round-up of recent opinion:
CLIFF REMEDIES
10th
March
SIR - In
my letter to the Herald of February 15, I, in effect, argued that the
overriding issue is not the steepness of the slope of the cliff but the rate at
which it is being undercut by marine action.
Subsequently,
at least two correspondents have added their support to a surface water drainage
scheme as a first step.
I remain
unconvinced by their arguments. What is the point of a “comparatively
inexpensive contribution to slowing the escalating rate of erosion that is
endangering the town” (Robert Crick, Opinion, 22 February) if the measure
results only in a steeper slope to the cliff face, while the rate at which the
cliff ‘moves’ landward due to sea action remains unaffected? He perceives a
threat to the town but such a measure on its own would do nothing to reduce
that risk. David Jenkinson (Opinion, March 1) states that “the main cause is the
fundamental instability of the cliff because of its geology”. He plays down the
role of the sea. Were the action of the sea (cliff undercutting and debris
removal) to be omitted from the equation, then the cliff could be likened to an
unsupported trench face.
Initially
it would be unstable but under the effects of gravity and hydraulic action it
would acquire an essentially stable long-term slope angle. If that was the
situation prevailing east of the Sid then the cliffs would have already reached
a relatively benign stable condition.
Clearly
this is not the case. Unfortunately, it is the dynamic action of the sea that
is the root cause of the cliff instability, not its geology.
I am
fully aware that coastal erosion is a very complex issue and that any strategy
to reduce land loss to the sea will include different approaches. Attempting to
lower the water-table would probably be one of them, but not as a first step.
David
McCluskey
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment