North Yorkshire Programme Update. Victoria Murray North Yorkshire Coastal Lead 07/07/17

Transcription

1 North Yorkshire Programme Update Victoria Murray North Yorkshire Coastal Lead 07/07/17

2 Outline & Outcome Introduction - View from the top Runswick Bay Whitby Piers Boggle Hole YHA Scarborough Spa Summary & Questions

3 Introduction North Yorkshire Overview

4 Runswick Bay Seawall deterioration and scour Rock Armour Cost - 1,588k FDGiA - 1,488k YW works - 700k Partnership Funding Contribution 100k Runswick Bay Home Owners Association

5 Whitby Piers Voiding, undermining Sheet piles, grouting Cost - 8.4m FDGiA - 4.8m Partnership Funding Contribution

6 Boggle Hole Cliff scour & slip, access ramp erosion, undermined bridge toe, Cleveland Way Retaining Wall, Concrete slipway, toe protection Anticipated Cost - 120,000 Local Levy - 20,000 Partnership Funding Contributions YHA, Leader, National Trails, North York Moors National Park.

7 Scarborough Spa Cliff Instability Piling, soil nails, regrade Cost - 16,214,000 FDGiA - 11,619,000 SBC - 1,892,000 NYCC - 1,200,000 Funding Shortfall of 1.5m

8 Summary and Questions 43 projects across N.Yorkshire coast Current, Medium Term, and Long Term/Pipeline projects Diverse Collaboration Partnership in action Questions

9 LINCSHORE 2017 Better protecting: 20,000 residential properties, 1,700 commercial properties 30,000 caravans and 35,000ha of prime agricultural land campaign completed Deposited iro 350,000m campaign missed 18 tides due to weather 2017 last Lincshore campaign Forward look to Saltfleet to Gibraltar Point Strategy.

10 SALTFLEET TO GIBRALTAR POINT Strategy Review Interim Beach Management replaces Lincshore Strategy Area divided into 3 core frontages A-B-C Frontage B is the hard defence between Mablethorpe & Skegness Strategy consulting on broad options. Broad option selection will allow refinement of approach. Business Case approval expected 2018/19 Works Arising to commence 2020/21

11 DONNA NOOK MANAGED REALIGNMENT Outstanding permission to divert public footpath Following diversion, breach will be made and Marsh Lane road improvements Significant package of monitoring and management necessary after breach Recent works to remove gate, mechanism and flaps from breach site

12 CLEETHORPES TERMINAL GROYNE Developed and managed by NELC OBC with EA assistance 1.5M with contribs from NELC & LL Reducing tidal flood risk to northern end Cleethorpes town Maintains beach levels along North Prom tourism/amenity 650 households - benefit apportionment with Grimsby Dock scheme 14,000t of rock from Norway via Grimsby Refurbishment of 3 other associated timber groynes Habitat impact challenges overcome

13 PORT OF IMMINGHAM ABP asset NELC lead OBC partnership including EA Phase 1 replace outer lock doors inc new restraints and wing walls Installation summer 2017 Phase 2 2km static defences Difficult access - alignment? Installation ? OBC M (1 in 200 standard) Funding ABP+GiA+ERDF Maintenance - ABP but more ambitious phase 2?? Commercial and infrastructure economic damages only

14 Schemes in development: WINTERINGHAM & SOUTH FERRIBY OBC development packaged together Short list options in consultation Expected cost 8.0M M Construction Cemex/ERDF/North Lincs contributions Adaptation approach strategic future options BARTON to NEW HOLLAND B2NH long list options in development Costs TBC Expected construction Habitat challenges and opportunities Wide range of benefits inc. recreation

15 Identifying Delivery Risks in Shoreline Management Plan Policies

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Many of the issues relating to expectations of the SMPs relate to its title being misleading for many stakeholders. The review should also include a review of its title perhaps Coastal Defence Management Plan would be more informative Money talks. Ultimately the UK is a heavily industrialised, confined space. Land is a vital resource. The importance of defences against erosion and flooding are proportional to land value (look at Holland, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore). Economic benefits will probably always outweigh environmental concerns. Stakeholders have a various range of wants from the coast (but you cant always get what you want!) We are dealing with the real practical problems in specific areas, within a national guidance framework. Ultimately, also, it is not the science base but political balance which can deliver a sustainable solution to issues.

23 SMP Futures Scoping a light touch review of SMPs Hannah Williamson Advisor, National Strategy & Approaches team

24 SMP Futures Shoreline Management plans 1 st Generation SMPs - 49 produced in England and Wales - Concept introduced in 1993 following the identification of sediment cells 2 nd Generation SMPs - A review in 2001 identified issues with the 1st gen SMPs. - 2 nd Gen reduced the number of SMPs from epochs (0-20, 20-50, ) - 4 policy options - Provide an evidence base for strategic planning at sea and on land SMP Futures - How do we ensure that SMPs remain useable and current?

25 SMP Futures Why review SMPs? Since SMP2 published a number of issues have been identified and new information has become available: Politics Technical knowledge Data Transition from epoch 1 to 2 Changes Public awareness and acceptance How Deliverable are SMPs as they stand?

26 SMP Futures Identifying delivery risks in SMP policies March 2017 Environment Agency commissioned a study to better understand where delivery risk may exist. Approach High level national review England only Systematic approach Focus on SMP statements only Considered original rationale and justifications presented Examined statements in Economic Appraisal Appendices Information from these has been combined to form an overall conclusion for each PU

27 SMP Futures Overall approach PU Policy Statement Economic Appendix Categorise risk for each policy (may be a different one for each epoch) Identify PUs where BCR<1 Define whether risk should be defined as CONSIDER FURTHER or flag as BE AWARE Review statements/ policy maps HTL NAI MR ATL Flag as BE AWARE Summarise overall risk for unit: No obvious risk, CONSIDER FURTHER, BE AWARE

28 SMP Futures Overall findings Out of 1536 policy units: 70% (1076) = no obvious risk 18% (278) need further consideration 12% (182) possible issues have been identified 1730 different policy options appraised for the 1536 units

29 SMP Futures Overall findings HTL NAI MR ATL BCR (<1) Risk Flag Risk Flag Risk Flag Risk Flag Flag NoR No obvious risk (NoR) Funding dependency Subject to studies Definition discrepancy Potential for challenge? Other Economics % OK 74% 88% 37% 100% % Consider Further 20% 7% 42% 0% % Be Aware 6% 5% 21% 0% Policy with largest delivery risk = MR majority of this due to category Subject to studies HTL policies - 20% Consider Further - most of these relate to subject to studies, but a third relate to funding dependency NAI policies 7% Consider Further - either due to subject to studies or potential for challenge Most Definition Discrepancy and all Other categories are flagged as Be Aware rather than Consider Further

30 By SMP area SMP Number of PUs Consider Further Be Aware No Obvious Risk 1. Scottish Border to The Tyne 101 8% 11% 81% 2. The Tyne to Flamborough Head 97 11% 11% 78% 3. Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point 20 20% 15% 65% 4. Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton 4 50% 50% 0% 5. Hunstanton to Kelling Hard 27 15% 22% 63% 6. Kelling Hard to Lowestoft 24 23% 35% 42% 7. Lowestoft Ness to Felixstowe 66 24% 23% 53% 8. Felixstowe to Two Tree Island % 32% 55% 9. Medway and Swale 30 30% 10% 60% 10. Isle of Grain to South Foreland 27 19% 11% 70% 11. South Foreland to Beachy Head 30 3% 3% 94% 12. Beachy Head to Selsey Bill 27 7% 15% 78% 13. Selsey Bill to Hurst Spit 62 27% 3% 70% 14. Isle of Wight 62 15% 5% 80% 15. Hurst Spit to Durlston Head 57 25% 5% 70% 16. Durlston Head to Rame Head % 5% 83% 17. Rame Head to Hartland Point % 9% 68% 18. Hartland Point to Anchor Point 91 27% 21% 52% 19. Anchor Point to Welsh Border 50 4% 6% 90% Northwest England % 11% 68%

31 SMP Futures Workshop Workshop to consider the future of Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) Aim: agree the scope of and general approach to a national light touch review of Shoreline Management Plans intended for 2018 Also discussed the related issues of SMP profile and hosting, SMP monitoring and reporting Attendees: Coastal group chairs and members RFCC coastal leads EA coastal staff (area and national) Defra Natural England.

32 SMP Futures Workshop Initial Outputs Environment Economics and funding Issues with SMPs Data and evidence Usability Accessibility

33 SMP Futures Workshop Next steps Review feedback from the SMP workshop and circulate for comment Funding and approach for light touch review Engagement Papers to EA board, RFCC chairs, coastal group chairs SMP Short Summaries SMP hosting and web presence

34 Thank you

35 Cell 1 Coastal Assets

36 Cell 1 Coastal Assets Cell 1 Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme 2-yearly walkover inspections of coastal assets Built defences and natural features Report issued to each authority SANDS database updated and issued to each authority Commenced in 2002 for Northumberland and North Tyneside Commenced in 2008 for rest of Cell 1 High level overview at Cell scale to complement / inform authorities own inspection and maintenance regimes Some more rural areas have no physical surveys (other than 2-yearly Cell-wide aerial photography and Lidar) and therefore walkover inspections are important for identifying changes

37 Built Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

38 Cell 1 Coastal Assets Summary of 2016 Walkover Inspection Findings

39 Cell 1 Coastal Assets Maintenance budgets typically 16k - 230k 2-yearly walkover inspections inform maintenance regimes of some authorities Most authorities thought that revenue budgets were insufficient (although one though they were sufficient for their frontage) ~80% assets remain in same class between subsequent surveys, but some improve (capital schemes or repairs) and some deteriorate (lack of maintenance / repair or storm damage) Deterioration in some assets is measurable between walk-overs Capital schemes are often relied upon to improve condition and perhaps mask need for increased maintenance budgets (i.e. structures get to worse conditions quicker, necessitating capital works rather than revenue budgets prolonging effectiveness)

40 Built Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

41 Built Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

42 Built Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

43 Built Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

44 Built Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

45 Built Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

46 Natural Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

47 Natural Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

48 Natural Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

49 Natural Assets Cell 1 Coastal Assets

50 Cell 1 Coastal Assets Deterioration and Failures Deterioration in condition reported over many years, leading to collapse being reported in 2016 Reported to authority by inspector and repaired within a few days of being identified

51 Repairs and refurbishments Cell 1 Coastal Assets

52 Repairs and refurbishments Cell 1 Coastal Assets

53 Repairs and refurbishments Cell 1 Coastal Assets

54 Cell 1 Coastal Assets

55 Cell 1 Coastal Assets

56 Redevelopment and regeneration Cell 1 Coastal Assets

57 Redevelopment and regeneration Cell 1 Coastal Assets

58 Adaptation to coastal change Cell 1 Coastal Assets

59 Cliffs

60 Cliffs

61 Cliffs

62 Cliffs

63 Northumberland County Council Condition Defended Undefended Totals 2014 Totals 2016 Length (km) No of assets Length (km) No of assets Length (km) No of assets Length (km) No of assets (blank) Grand Total Scarborough Borough Council Condition Defended Undefended Totals 2014 Totals 2016 Length (km) No of assets Length (km) No of assets Length (km) No of assets Length (km) No of assets (blank)* Grand Total

64

65 Reports NECG - Cell 1 Coastal Assets - Revenue Spending on Coastal Defences Areas benefiting from defences Summary analysis of Cell 1 coastal asset data.

66 Ideas for some coastal Key Performance Indicators C1 - Coastal Asset Defence Condition C2 - Adaptation, Number of properties needing adaptation or adapted? C3 - Properties lost to coastal erosion C4 - Assets/Land/Habitat lost to coastal erosion C5 - Properties protected against coastal erosion C6 - Assets/land/Habitat protected against coastal erosion