Agenda item

(To receive a report from David Hickman (Growth and Environment Commissioner) which details the consultation input into the review of the management of coastal flood risk on the Lincolnshire coast between Saltfleet and Gibraltar Point)

The Committee received a joint presentation from Mark Robinson, Senior Advisor, Environment Agency, Michelle Scott, Flood Resilience Officer, Environment Agency and Claire Rose, Team Leader, Environment Agency concerning the Saltfleet to Gibraltar Point Strategy.

It was reported that the Lincshore project had started in 1994 and had provided flood risk management to homes and businesses in the area since then.  The Environment Agency was now reviewing the coastal strategy to cover a larger area between Saltfleet and Gibraltar Point.  The public consultation regarding the strategy had commenced on 5 February 2018 and was due to close on 22 March 2018.

It was highlighted that the sea defences between Saltfleet and Gibraltar Point helped to manage the risk of coastal flood to around 20,000 residential homes; 1,700 businesses; 24,500 static caravans; 35,000 hectares of farmland and a bustling tourist industry.

In 1991 the county's first coastal management plan was approved with a sand re-nourishment programme launched in 1994, known as Lincshore.  And as a result the beaches had been annually maintained at a healthy level.  It was highlighted that Lincshore was reviewed every five years to ensure that it remained a cost-effective and sustainable way of managing coast flood risk in the area.

The Committee was advised that the latest climate change guidance indicated that the present management approach might not be sufficient in the future to reduce coastal flood risk effectively.  As a result it was predicted that beach levels would need to be higher, which would involve the need for more sand.  It was highlighted that a large area of land behind the defenced was at or below mean sea level; and that major investments had continued to improve sea defences between Mablethorpe and Skegness.

Because of the need to maintain higher beach levels, the Environment Agency was exploring beach nourishment alongside a range of viable alternative options/approaches to ensure that a sustainable and affordable long-term flood risk management solution was maintained along the Lincolnshire coast line.

The Committee was asked to review the six shortlisted strategy options, by completing a copy of the Public Consultation Questionnaire on Strategy Options.  The six options are detailed below; and the comments raised were as follows:-

Option 1 Sand on the beach

The Committee was advised that this was what was done currently between Mablethorpe and Skegness to help manage coastal flood risk.  It was reported that sand was taken from licensed sites, to replace sand lost through natural erosion and storms.  It was highlighted that there were costs attached to this and work was ongoing to try and drive the cost down.  One member enquired as to how much the sand costed.  The Committee was advised that dependent on variance of sea levels, the cost could be up to £7m a year.  The Committee was advised that the sand was obtained from licensed sites owned by a dredging company.  Due to increased costs of sand, a suggestion was made as to whether sand should be sourced outside of the 12 mile limit (Crown Estate).  Officers advised that the Environment Agency was unable to lobby its sponsor DEFRA.  The Committee further suggested that local MP's should be approached to lobby the mechanism for obtaining sand.

Option 2 - Coarser sand, shingle or pebbles

The Committee was advised that at the moment a fine grade of sand was put onto the beaches.  This sand offered good protection, but the only disadvantage was that fine sand was easily moved around by wind or wave action.  In moving to coarser sand some of the following issues would need to be taken into consideration, such as the beach profile; the cost could be higher if the material was located further away and to the fact that a donor site would have to be sourced, however, it might not need to be replenished as often as it would be less likely to move.  It was highlighted that from an ecological perspective which ever choice was made all would have an impact.

Option 3 - Rock groynes plus sand on the beach

The Senior Advisor Environment Agency advised that rock groynes helped keep sand on the beach by limiting the movement of sand.  The Committee was advised that a rock groyne was a line of large rocks stacked on top of each other that generally stretched from the seawall to the shoreline.  It was noted that the angle heading out to sea and the spacing between the structures varied depending on the location.  It was noted that the initial costs were much higher, but over a ten year period would be cheaper in the long run.  Less sand would be required; but natural movement of sand along the coast would change.  It was noted further that there was opportunities for additional funding with the formation of marinas and lookout points.  One member highlighted a potential health and safety issue with the size and height of the rocks.

Option 4 - Rock groynes and fishtails plus sand on the beach

This option involved the combination of rock groynes and fishtails.  The Committee was advised that fishtails were large structures which were used to segment a section of coast, to form large crescent bays along the coastline.  It was highlighted that they were very efficient in reducing sand movement and coastal erosion.  Again less sand would be required; there would however be a change of landscape/seascape especially with larger fishtails; and the natural movement along the coast would change.  It was highlighted that some structures were adapted to make walk ways

Option 5 - Rock groynes, fishtails with different volumes of sand

The Committee was advised that this option was a variance on Option 4 in that it still combined rock groynes, fishtails and sand. But this option provided for placing different volumes of sand to provide varied standards of protection depending on location and funding.  Some of the considerations reported were that less sand would be required, and that a localised approach could mean better use of funding and that there were extra opportunities with additional funding for marinas and lookouts.

Option 6 - Rock groynes, fishtails with different frequencies of sand.

Again, this Option was a variance of Option 4 as it sill combined rock groynes, fishtails and sand.  The only change would be that consideration would be given to placing sand on the beach at different frequencies/intervals, which would provide varied standards of protection depending on location and funding. 

Some concern was raised with regard to the drop in protection in certain locations.  Officer advised that major communities would be kept with standard protection.  If less sand was used then steps would need to be taken regarding re-alignment.  Some members express concern that it was difficult for a lay person to determine different density of sand and grade of gravel etc.  A question was asked as to whether gravel would retain more water.  Officers advised that gravel had more stability than sand; and was more likely to shift less.  The Committee was advised that frequencies were currently annually, but could change to say every 2/4 years; in doing this there was an acceptance of the natural movement of sand along the coast and as a result the coast line might change.

Note: Councillor T Ashton wished it to be noted that he was the Portfolio Member Holder for Planning at East Lindsey District Council.

The Flood Resilience Officer invited members of the Committee to encourage family and friends to complete the questionnaire on-line.

In conclusion, the Committee completed their questionnaire individually and agreed that the Executive Councillor for Economy and Place should lobby MP's concerning the cost of sand and the criteria for funding.

RESOLVED

That the Executive Councillor for Economy and Place be requested to contact local MP's regarding the provision of sand for beach nourishment.