Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Scoping Report

Home , Budle Bay, North Shields Fish Quay, Redcar Rocks, Saltburn Gill

Cell 1 SMP2 Action Plans SEA & WFD

Prepared for Scarborough Borough Council

August 2015

Park House Headingley office Park 8 Victoria Road Leeds LS6 1PF

Contents

Section Page Introduction ...... 1‐1 1.1 Purpose of this report ...... 1‐1 1.2 Overall aims of the project ...... 1‐1 1.3 Responsibilities for coastal flood and erosion risk management ...... 1‐1 1.4 Introduction to shoreline management plans ...... 1‐2 1.4.1 Overview ...... 1‐2 1.4.2 Northumberland and North Tyneside SMP ...... 1‐2 1.4.3 River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP ...... 1‐3 1.4.4 SMP policies ...... 1‐3 1.4.5 Development of SMP policies ...... 1‐3 1.4.6 SMP2 action plans ...... 1‐4 1.4.7 Coastal strategies ...... 1‐5 1.5 How to comment on this report ...... 1‐5 Introduction to SEA ...... 2‐1 2.1 The SEA directive, guidance and the SMP2 SEAs ...... 2‐1 2.2 The SEA process ...... 2‐1 2.2.1 Screening ...... 2‐2 2.2.2 Scoping ...... 2‐2 2.2.3 Baseline data ...... 2‐2 2.2.4 Assessment methodology ...... 2‐2 2.2.5 Consultation ...... 2‐2 2.2.6 Reporting ...... 2‐3 2.2.7 Implementation/monitoring ...... 2‐3 2.3 Assessment of SMP2 action plans ...... 2‐4 2.3.1 Assessment of coastal strategies action plans ...... 2‐4 2.3.2 Water Framework Directive assessment ...... 2‐4 2.3.3 Habitat Regulations assessment ...... 2‐5 Baseline Information ...... 3‐1 3.1 Introduction and existing information ...... 3‐1 3.2 Additional baseline information ...... 3‐1 3.2.1 Coastal cell –wide coastal processes monitoring ...... 3‐1 3.2.2 Habitat mapping ...... 3‐1 3.2.3 Habitat studies ...... 3‐1 3.2.4 Marine Conservation Zones ...... 3‐1 SMP2 Action Plans ...... 4‐1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4‐1 4.2 Categorisation of actions ...... 4‐1 4.2.1 Asset management and maintenance actions ...... 4‐1 4.2.2 Development planning and adaptation actions ...... 4‐1 4.2.3 Monitoring actions ...... 4‐1 4.2.5 Study and investigation actions ...... 4‐2 4.3 Scoping of actions ...... 4‐2 Scope of the SEA ...... 5‐1

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL III COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2015 CONTENTS, CONTINUED

Section Page 5.1 Scoping environmental issues ...... 5‐1 SEA Framework ...... 6‐1 6.1 Approach to environmental appraisal ...... 6‐1 6.1.1 SEA of SMP2 and coastal strategy action plans...... 6‐1 6.2 Environmental objectives ...... 6‐1 6.2.1 Introduction ...... 6‐1 6.2.2 SEA objectives ...... 6‐1 6.2.3 Assessment methodology and SEA scoring criteria ...... 6‐2 Next Steps ...... 7‐1 7.1 Next steps in SEA process ...... 7‐1

Appendixes A Figures B Feedback Form C Baseline Data and Issues Tables D Action Plan Tables

IV CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2015 CONTENTS, CONTINUED

Section Page

Document History

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by 1.0 August Draft for client comment Caroline Frost Corinna Morgan Andy Parsons 2015

1.1 August Final draft for client sign off Caroline Frost Caroline Frost Andy Parsons 2015

1.2 August Final for consultee issue Caroline Frost Caroline Frost David Robinson 2015 (SBC)

Notice: This report was prepared by Halcrow Group Ltd, a CH2M company, in accordance with the scope and instructions of Scarborough Borough Council for their sole and specific use. Any other persons or organisations who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. In producing this report, CH2M has relied upon information provided by others. The completeness or accuracy of this information is not guaranteed by CH2M.

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL V COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

SECTION 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this report Scarborough Borough Council has identified a need for an environmental assessment of the combined effects of implementing both the Northumberland and North Tyneside Shoreline Management Plan SMP2 and the River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 over the whole of Coastal Sediment Cell 1. Consequently, the council commissioned CH2M HILL to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Action Plans identified by the two SMP2s between the Scottish Border and Flamborough Head to provide a cell‐ wide assessment. This Environmental Scoping Report has therefore been prepared to scope the holistic assessment of the potential environmental effects of the actions identified in the Action Plans, taking into account changes in legislation and the baseline environment, and recent best practice guidance. This Environmental Scoping Report is being used to:  introduce the project to stakeholders;  identify and confirm the flood risk and coastal management strategies produced by each Local Authority that need to be considered as part of the Project;  request any additional data of relevance to the project in order to inform the assessment; and  identify issues and constraints, which require further consideration during the SEA. An SEA was incorporated into the SMP2s which considered the environmental effects of implementing the preferred SMP2 policies. It is not the intention of this project to reconsider the preferred SMP2 policies only the Actions in the SMP2 Action Plans, which detail the activities required in order to implement the SMP2 preferred policies. 1.2 Overall aims of the project The purpose of this project is to undertake a WFD assessment and SEA of the SMP2 Action Plans for Coastal Sediment Cell 1. The project, which is divided into two phases, will involve undertaking the following activities and will aid in the understanding of the following objectives and uncertainties:  An integrated assessment of the potential effects of the SMP Action Plans on the status of relevant water‐bodies within Cell 1;  A holistic assessment of the potential environmental effects of the actions identified in the Action Plan providing the opportunity to identify potential adverse and beneficial cumulative effects across Cell 1;  An economic valuation of any recommended changes to Action Plans to determine cost savings and losses (not included as part of the SEA process); and  A more up to date and complete understanding of how the SMP Action Plans could affect the environment using data derived from the Cell 1 Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme and current studies. 1.3 Responsibilities for coastal flood and erosion risk management There are nine maritime local authorities along the North East coast of England as shown on Figure 1.1 in Appendix A. These local authorities have powers to undertake works to manage risks related to coastal erosion under the Coast Protection Act 1949 (CPA), with consent from the Environment Agency (EA) in accordance with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 1-1 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

The Environment Agency (EA) is the primary sea defence authority for England and undertakes a strategic overview of all flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) activities undertaken by other risk management authorities. Coast Protection Authorities have two main functions; regulating coast protection works undertaken by others (such as landowners), and promoting their own schemes, subject to consent and part‐funded by grant from the EA. The CPA makes no specific provisions for amenity or conservation works and is confined solely to defence structures. There are however numerous other regulations and European Directives that ensure environmental considerations play a major part in the design and construction of any new scheme or maintenance works, and under the CPA as a Coast Protection Authority, all of the maritime district councils must consider the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the Land Drainage Act (LDA) 2010 at all times. Neither the maritime district councils nor the EA (collectively known as Risk Management Authorities) have a legal obligation to undertake FCERM activities on their coastline. However, under permissive powers, they routinely carry out works that are both capital funded (i.e. through applications for Grant Aid made to the EA) and revenue funded (i.e. from their annual budgets). 1.4 Introduction to shoreline management plans 1.4.1 Overview SMPs set out a plan for a 100 year period indicating how flood and erosion risks at the coastline should be managed, taking into account the wider implications on the neighbouring coastline and the environment. The plans provide a broad scale assessment of the risks associated with coastal evolution and climate change and specific advice to risk management authorities in their management of the coast. SMPs consider objectives, policy setting and management requirements for three main epochs; from the present day (0 to 20 years), medium‐term (20 to 50 years) and long‐term 50 to 100 years) i.e. from the time of SMP2 preparation to 2025 (short term), from 2025 to 2055 (medium term) and from 2055 to 2105 (long term). SMPs divide the 6,000 mile shoreline of England and Wales into eleven coastal cells and sub cells defined by coastal type and processes such as the movement of beach and seabed sediment (sand, shingle, etc.) within and between them. The north east coast of England lies within Cell 1 and includes the coastline from the Scottish Border to Flamborough Head, which covers approximately 300km. The first SMPs (SMP1) were completed by 2000. Since that time more detailed strategy studies have been undertaken over large sections of the coastline and these, together with academic research and monitoring, improved the understanding of how the coast behaves and informed the preparation of second round SMP2s. The Cell 1 study area is currently covered by two SMP2s; the Northumberland and North Tyneside SMP (Section 1.4.2) and the River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP (Section 1.4.3). 1.4.2 Northumberland and North Tyneside SMP The original SMP for this area, Northumberland (known as SMP1) was completed in 1998. The second SMP, known as Northumberland and North Tyneside SMP2 was completed in May 2009. Whilst SMP1 covered the coastline from St. Abb’s Head to the River Tyne, SMP2 now extends from the Scottish Border to the River Tyne. The section of coastline between St. Abb’s Head and the Scottish Border does not display significant coastal process interactions with the coastline further south and therefore this separation is now appropriate given the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament since completion of SMP1. The SMP2 document was developed on behalf of the Northumbria Coastal Authorities Group (NCAG)1 and sets out the results of the first revision to the original Shoreline Management Plan for the area of

1 This Group became subsumed within the wider ‘North East Coastal Group’ with effect from 1st October 2008.

1-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

Northumberland and North Tyneside coast extending from the Scottish Border south to the River Tyne. NCAG comprised representatives from Berwick‐upon‐Tweed Borough Council2, Alnwick District Council2, Castle Morpeth Borough Council2, Wansbeck District Council2, Blyth Valley Borough Council2, North Tyneside Council, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Northumberland Coastal Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and other interested parties such as the Port of Tyne, Port of Blyth, North East Sea Fisheries, and Scottish Borders Council. The SMP2 recommended that a detailed review is undertaken of the SMP2 in around 10 years’ time (i.e. around 2019) and for this project it has been assumed that this will still occur. 1.4.3 River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP The three original SMPs for this area were completed in 1998, 1999, and 1997 working from north to south along the coast. The River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 was completed in October 2007. This SMP2 document, developed on behalf of the North East Coastal Authorities Group (NECAG), sets out the results of the first revision to the original SMPs for the area of coast extending from the River Tyne south to Flamborough Head. This SMP2 supersedes the three original SMPs (SMP1) for sub‐cells 1b, 1c and 1d. At the time of the development of the SMP2 NECAG3 comprised representatives from Scarborough Borough Council (Lead Authority), Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, South Tyneside Municipal Borough Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Easington District Council, Hartlepool Borough Council, Sunderland City Council, Natural England, Environment Agency and Defra. 1.4.4 SMP policies The generic shoreline management policies considered in the SMPs are those defined by Defra (2006); they are represented by the statements:  No active intervention (NAI): where there is no investment in coastal defences or operations;  Hold the existing defence line (HTL): maintain or change the standard of protection provided by defences. This would include work or operations carried out in front of the existing defences or where, while maintaining existing defences, policies involve operations to the back of defences (such as secondary flood defences) as an essential part of maintaining the current defence system;  Advance the existing defence line (ATL): build new defences on the seaward side of the original defences; and  Managed realignment (MR): allow the shoreline to move backwards or forwards, with management to control or limit movement. 1.4.5 Development of SMP policies Figure 1.2 below presents the subdivision of the coastal frontage used for developing and presenting the coastal management policies. In developing policy in the SMPs, the coast was divided (at the highest level) into “Policy Development Zones” (PDZ). The coast along Northumberland is split into six PDZs: and the Tyne to Flamborough Head is split into 12 PDZs, as shown on Figure 1.3 in Appendix A. Within each of these PDZs, the principal management issues needing to be addressed were identified. Within each PDZ, different SMP policies (Section1.3.4) were considered; always starting with the NAI policy for all locations within the PDZ. A preferred defence management policy (referred to as the preferred policy) was subsequently identified for smaller sections of the coast ‐ Policy Units (PU). This policy defines how that section of coast should be managed over the life time of the SMP. Due to some inter‐dependencies between Policy Units (to justify a policy of retreat in one area may be on the assumption that an adjacent section of coast is held), policy units were grouped. Such groups of policy

2 This authority became part of the unitary Northumberland County Council with effect from 1st April 2009.

3 Since 2010 NECAG has included the area from the Scottish border to the Wash i.e. sediment cells 1 and 2.

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 1-3 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

units are defined as “Management Areas”. The definition of the management area is only at the end of the policy development process. A statement can then be produced providing the understanding of why a specific area of the coast is to be managed in this way and how individual policies work to deliver that intent. Figure 1.2 Schematic Representation of the Frontage Subdivisions (taken from Figure 3.1 in the Northumberland SMP2, 2009).

1.4.6 SMP2 action plans Action Plans for Cell 1 were presented in each of the two SMP2 documents. The Action Plans summarise the high‐level and strategic actions that are required to implement the policies of the SMP2. The SMP2 Action Plans are intended to:  Establish processes for finalisation, dissemination and review of the SMP2;  Enable linkages with relevant related flood and erosion risk management initiatives;  Enable delivery of a prioritised programme of Strategy Plan development or reviews, studies and investigations;  Enable delivery of a prioritised programme of possible future schemes that are likely to be required given the preferred policies that have been identified;  Identify actions that will be required to resolve uncertainties;  Identify actions that are necessary to deal with the consequences of the SMP policies; and  Establish processes for informing stakeholders of progress with ongoing actions. The Action Plans include studies, schemes and monitoring that will need to be carried out or developed in order to implement policies for each area. An important aspect of the Action Plans is to identify the monitoring required in order to gain a better understanding of coastal processes, so as to perform coastal management in an effective manner and to feed back into the shoreline management process. In general it is the Risk Management Authorities who, even if not actually managing specific actions, will be promoting or ensuring actions are undertaken in a timely manner. The Action Plans of both the Cell 1 SMP2’s are presented in Section 7 of each of the SMP2 documents along with an indicative cost and an indicative timescale by when the action is proposed to be undertaken (it should be noted that some actions have been completed since the SMPs were published). While the degree

1-4 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION of urgency may in one way be assessed from consideration of all issues (i.e. in terms of the significance of the issue being addressed), a more absolute urgency also arises from the possibility of being too late. This can arise from the timescale of potential loss (i.e. there is little point in investigating how loss may be avoided once loss has actually occurred). Equally, urgency may arise in terms of integrated decision making (i.e. the need for decisions on risk management needed to inform or be developed alongside land use planning). 1.4.7 Coastal strategies The strategies that have been developed for managing flood risk and coastal erosion along the Cell 1 coastline have been identified through a web‐based search and consultation with each Coast Protection Authority and are presented in Table 1.1. It has been assumed that any actions within the strategies produced prior to the SMP2s were incorporated into the Action Plans of the two SMP2 and therefore these coastal strategies will not be considered further. Table 1.1. FCERM Strategies identified for Cell 1. Coastal Protection Strategy Name Strategy Date Authority Northumberland County Alnmouth Bay Strategy 2002 Council North Tyneside Council Hartley Cove To The River Tyne Coastal Strategy Plan 2007 South Tyneside Council Coastal Management Strategy 2007‐2012 2007 Sunderland Council Whitburn to Ryhope Coast Protection Strategy Study 2001 Hartlepool Borough Hartlepool Headland Coastal Strategy Study 2006 Council Seaton Carew Coastal Strategy Study 2011 Redcar and Cleveland Redcar Coastal Defence Strategy Project Appraisal Report 2004 Borough Council Redcar to Saltburn Coastal Defence Strategy Unknown Skinningrove Coastal Defences Strategy Plan 1999 Durham County Council Seaham Coastal Strategy 2004 Scarborough Borough Runswick Bay Strategy 2015 Council Whitby Strategy 2012 Robin Hoods Bay Strategy 2012 Scarborough Town Strategy 2009 Filey Strategy 2002*1 Cayton Bay Strategy 2002*1 East Riding of Yorkshire None identified Council *1 = under revision, will be replaced by a single strategy

1.5 How to comment on this report We welcome your views on the content of this report, the SMP updates being developed and the scope of the associated SEA. There are various ‘Question Boxes’ in the Feedback Form in Appendix B that provide the

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 1-5 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

opportunity for input to the process via specific information or data. The Feedback Form can be completed once this document has been reviewed. The consultation period on this Environmental Scoping Report will close on Friday 2nd October 2015 and Feedback Forms should be sent to Mr. David Robinson, Scarborough Borough Council, Town Hall, St. Nicholas Street, Scarborough, North Yorkshire. YO11 2HG. Or emailed to: [email protected] All comments received will be recorded and acknowledged, and used to inform the future development of the SEA. This report will be formally issued to the SEA Statutory Consultees (Natural England, Historic England and the Environment Agency) to request a scoping opinion in accordance with the SEA Regulations and other key organisations to seek their views and feedback.

1-6 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 2 Introduction to SEA

2.1 The SEA directive, guidance and the SMP2 SEAs Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, and the associated Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, requires that a SEA be carried out for certain plans and programmes that are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions. The Directive is intended to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account alongside other economic and social considerations in the development of relevant plans and programmes. Whilst it has been determined that SMPs are not required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions, they do set a framework for future development and have much in common with the kind of plans and programmes for which the Directive is designed. Therefore, Defra has recommended that environmental appraisal of the SMPs is undertaken in line with the approach of the Directive. The two SMPs for Cell 1 have therefore already been subject to a SEA which is included in the SMP2 documents. Rather than produce a standalone SEA, the approach within these SMP2s was to make the environmental assessment integral to the process of setting the policies. The SEA considered the environmental impacts and effects of implementing the NAI Policy, the Present management (or WPM) policy and the preferred policy. Assessments were carried out for each of the scenarios broken down by PDZ and MA. Where significant impacts were identified, appropriate avoidance, mitigation or enhancement strategies have been included in the SMP2 documents. The whole process of scenario appraisal and subsequent definition of proposed policies is presented in Section 4 of both the two SMP2 documents. 2.2 The SEA process SEA is the formalised, systematic process of evaluating the environmental impact of a policy, plan, strategy or programme. It provides an environmental overview and establishes environmental objectives at the strategic level. A summary of this process is shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Summary of the SEA Process

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 2-1 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO SEA

2.2.1 Screening Screening determines whether there is a need for SEA for the Plan or Programme being initiated. As mentioned in Section 2.1.1 there is no formal need for SEA of SMPs under the ‘SEA Regulations’, but best practice guidelines, and those of Defra, support the preparation of voluntary SEAs, consequently, an SEA of the Action Plans of the SMP2s will be undertaken in line with best practice. 2.2.2 Scoping The scoping process identifies the main environmental receptors that require detailed consideration during the assessment process, and the extent and level of detail to be included in the SEA. In developing sustainable coastal management actions, SEA objectives are developed against which sustainable options can be appraised at a later stage. A list of SEA objectives for the SMP2 Action Plans has been initiated and will be further developed through consultation with key organisations on this Scoping Report. The draft objectives are described in Section 7.2 of this document. 2.2.3 Baseline data Information on the current state of the environment provides a baseline against which the significant environmental effects of the plan can be measured and assessed. The baseline data (Section 4 and Appendix C) identifies the key environmental issues and trends that characterise the area covered by the two SMPs and their Action Plans. Due to the nature of SEA, the identification of baseline data has focused upon those environmental issues of strategic importance that need to be addressed by future coastal management measures. There is a significant amount of baseline data that has been already been collected and this is presented in the SMP2 documents, which are available for inspection on the North East Coastal Observatory website (http://www.northeastcoastalobservatory.org.uk/). It has not been considered appropriate to reproduce all this information within this report, however, since the production of the two SMPs in 2007 and 2009, additional data has become available for several receptors and this is outlined in Section 4 and Appendix C. 2.2.4 Assessment methodology The process of assessment involves the identification of potential environmental effects and an evaluation of the significance of the predicted environmental effects. Many environmental problems result from the accumulation of multiple small and often indirect effects. These problems may occur together at one point, or over a period of time to create significant cumulative effects. 2.2.5 Consultation Consultation will be undertaken with statutory and non‐statutory consultees and stakeholder groups throughout the development of the SEA and will be initiated through the dissemination of this SEA Scoping Report. Extensive consultation was undertaken in 2006 and 2008/09 as part of the production of the two SMP2 documents with statutory consultees, stakeholders, landowners and the public. Consultation has also been a part of developing the coastal strategies listed in Table 1.1. Legislative requirements for SEA mean that engagement and consultation must be undertaken with statutory environmental bodies (SEB) at particular stages during the development of the Project. Key stakeholders for this Project will focus on the Local Authorities within the geographical extent of Cell 1 and the SEBs. The key consultees to whom this scoping report will be issued for comment are listed in Table 2.1. Scarborough Borough Council will also consult local communities by placing this document on their website.

2-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO SEA

Table 2.1. Key stakeholders Statutory Environmental Bodies (SEBs) Other stakeholders Natural England; Marine Management Organisation Historic England; National Trust Environment Agency; RSPB Local Authorities Northumbrian Water Northumberland County Council (NCC) Yorkshire Water North Tyneside Council (NYC) Hartlepool Water (Part of Anglian Water) South Tyneside council (STC) Northumberland Rivers Trust Sunderland City Council (SCC) Tyne Rivers Trust Durham County Council (DCC) Wear Rivers Trust Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (RCBC) Tees Rivers Trust Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) East Yorkshire Rivers Trust Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) Northumberland Wildlife Trust East Ridings of Yorkshire council (ERYC) Durham Wildlife Trust North York Moors National park Authority Tees Valley Wildlife Trust Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

During the start‐up of the project it was identified that determining the status of the Actions in the Action Plans would be useful. This activity has been incorporated into the project and will be documented in a separate report that will accompany the SEA at the next phase of the project. Establishing the status of the actions in the Actions Plans will be undertaken through individual consultation with each CPA and through a workshop to be held following the identification of the Actions in the SMPs and the relevant Coastal Strategies. A spreadsheet detailing the actions, their location, timeframe and status will be produced which can then be updated in future by the Coastal Group. 2.2.6 Reporting The results of an SEA are usually documented in an SEA Environmental Report (ER), although for the two SMP2 documents, a standalone ER was not produced as the SEA process was integrated into the SMP process. An ER identifies, describes and evaluates the likely significant effects of a Plan or Strategy, in addition to any reasonable alternatives, and identifies mitigation and enhancement measures, where necessary. The likely significant combined effects of the SMP Action Plans requiring mitigation and monitoring will culminate in the production of, and consultation on, a SEA ER. A post‐adoption statement will also be required to outline how environmental considerations and the views of stakeholders and the general public obtained during consultation on the SEA, have informed the assessment and identification of mitigation measures of the Action Plans. 2.2.7 Implementation/monitoring The final stage of the SEA process requires the monitoring of the impacts of the Action Plans during their implementation.

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 2-3 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO SEA 2.3 Assessment of SMP2 action plans An environmental assessment was undertaken of the SMP policies in both the Northumberland and North Tyneside SMP2 and the River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 so it is not intended to repeat the SEA assessments for the SMP policies that were undertaken for both SMPs. This SEA will consider the effects on the environment from implementing the described actions (which were not previously assessed as part of the SMPs) and aims to consider the combined potential environmental effects of implementing the two SMP2s Action Plans over the whole of sediment Cell 1. This will assist in identifying potential conflicting policies across Cell 1 that may require further consideration during the next SMP review process, potential opportunities and cumulative impacts. The Cell wide environmental assessment will be undertaken in line with current on‐going and forthcoming monitoring programmes and studies, including the Cell 1 Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme (on‐going since 2008) and the Cell 1 Intertidal Habitat Study, 2014 (described further in Appendix C), allowing for a more complete understanding of the how the implementation of the SMP2 Action Plans could affect the environment. Both SMPs contain Action Plans for each MA and comprise a list of actions that are proposed to be undertaken to implement policy or to work towards implementing future policy in each MA. These actions take the form of monitoring across the whole of Cell 1 and investigations, planning, strategies and location specific schemes. Given the uncertainty in implementation of the actions in the Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2 and the River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 in future epochs, as they are likely to be less well formulated, subject to funding constraints and have more uncertainty surrounding them, the actions to be undertaken beyond 2020/21 have been scoped out of requiring assessment at the present time. This approach avoids the risk of considering those actions which may be removed or slightly changed as part of any potential future SMP2 review process. It also ensures that when the environmental effects of the actions are assessed the assessments are based upon the most recent data and current understanding of coastal processes rather than on date which could be out of date by the time the Action is implemented. As the actions in the SMPs include the production of strategies, appraisals, plans and schemes, which will each have their own associated environmental assessment at an appropriate level of detail (i.e. SEA for Strategies and Environmental Impact Assessment for schemes) it is intended that this SEA focuses on a high‐ level assessment of the Action Plans, with emphasis on the recommendations to inform future Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) activities. 2.3.1 Assessment of coastal strategies action plans The actions from any current coastal strategies produced by the Coastal Protection Authorities will also be considered in this SEA. The current coastal strategies are considered to be those that have been produced since the publication of the SMP2 document in 2007 and 2009. It has been assumed that the outcomes of any coastal strategies published before the SMP2 documents were included in the Action Plans of the SMP2 document. 2.3.2 Water Framework Directive assessment A WFD screening assessment will be undertaken to identify the relevant water‐bodies that could be affected by the SMP2 Action Plans across Cell 1. The WFD assessment will assess the hydromorphological and ecological impacts of the Action Plans, considering the potential impacts (both negative and positive) on WFD objectives. The assessment will also consider additional opportunities for delivering mitigation measures from the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). The WFD assessment will support the SEA of the Action Plans during the next stage of the project and provide a statement of compliance with WFD objectives (as appropriate).

2-4 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION TO SEA

2.3.3 Habitat Regulations assessment As part of the project, a HRA Screening Assessment will be prepared to assess the effects of the Actions Plans on the integrity of the internationally designated nature conservation sites.

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 2-5 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

SECTION 3 Baseline Information

3.1 Introduction and existing information A wealth of baseline data was collected to inform the production of the SMP2 documents and it is not the intention to repeat the baseline data contained in the SMP2 documents. Instead, Table C1 in Appendix C provides a “signposting” reference table to where specific environmental information can be found for each SMP2. The main environmental baseline features of the study area are summarised in Table C2 in Appendix C, together with key environmental issues, constraints and opportunities. Specific issues and objectives identified per council area in each of the SMP2 coastal areas is presented in Table C3 in Appendix C. Figure 4.1a to Figure 4.1i in Appendix A presents the environmental constraints plans for Cell 1. 3.2 Additional baseline information The following sections summarise the surveys and studies undertaken and baseline data gathered since the production of the two SMP2 for Cell 1. 3.2.1 Coastal cell –wide coastal processes monitoring Since the production of the two SMP2 documents monitoring of various aspects of the coastline and coastal processes has been ongoing as detailed in the Actions Plans of both SMPs. The findings of this monitoring are reported each year in the Full Measures Analytical Reports, which are published on the North East Coastal Observatory website http://www.northeastcoastalobservatory.org.uk/ 3.2.2 Habitat mapping The following habitat mapping data is available:  Environment Agency saltmarsh inventory GIS layer extent  Lindisfarne habitat mapping (Environment Agency 2014),  Coastal Monitoring Sand Dune analysis (Environment Agency, 2013)  Priority BAP habitat mapping for Cell 1 (currently ongoing ‐ the Habitat Capture Tool is being used to map all BAP habitats along the Cell 1 frontage. This uses a combination of aerial imagery from the Regional Monitoring Programme and Natural England which covers the landward portion of habitats. The aerial imagery is supported by ground truthing. 3.2.3 Habitat studies Two habitat studies have been undertaken to address and consider the outcomes of implementing the preferred policies of the Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2a and these are summarised in Section C1 in Appendix C. 3.2.4 Marine Conservation Zones Since the production of the SMP2s, 27 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) have been designated (November 2013) within English inshore and English and Welsh offshore waters, under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009. MCZs protect a range of nationally important marine wildlife, habitats, geology and geomorphology, and can be designated anywhere in English and Welsh territorial and UK offshore waters. There are two MCZs located in English offshore waters off the Cell 1 coastline; the North East of Farnes Deep and Swallow Sand, which will require consideration in the SEA (in addition to the nature conservation designations already identified in the SMP2s).

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 3-1 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 3 BASELINE INFORMATION

The North East of Farnes Deep MCZ is located approximately 55km from North Northumberland and covers 492km2. Water depth across the site ranges from 50 to 100 metres, making North East of Farnes Deep MCZ a relatively shallow offshore site. North East of Farnes Deep MCZ protects a large area of sediment seabed and a wide range of associated species that live within or on these habitats. Features of the site include subtidal coarse sediment (i.e. coarse sediment, shingle and gravel) which is present in the shallower part of this site. These areas are typically characterised by worms, bivalve molluscs, sea cucumbers and mobile crustaceans, such as the squat lobster, but also support a variety of sponge species. Subtidal Sand is also a feature for which the site is designated. The sandy seabed within the MCZ is not typically disturbed by waves or strong tidal currents so is able to support species such as worms, bivalve molluscs and amphipod crustaceans. Swallow Sand MCZ is an offshore site in the North Sea, located approximately 100km from the Northumberland coast. It protects an area of about 4,746 km², making it the largest MCZ to date. The MCZ covers one of the deepest areas in the North Sea with depths ranging from 50 to 150m. The site is designated for the following features:  Subtidal coarse sediment;  Subtidal sand; and  North Sea glacial tunnel valleys (Swallow Hole). Deeper parts of the seabed tend to be dominated by animals as reduced light levels restrict the ability of plant life to grow. The animal communities found on coarse sediments are typically made up of species such as polychaete worms and bivalves which burrow within the sediments or sea urchins and anemones which live on the sediment surface. The sandy areas within the site are typically exposed to moderate wave action and weak tidal currents. This relatively stable environment is able to support large numbers of worms, molluscs and crustaceans. A North Sea glacial tunnel valley, known as Swallow Hole, is protected within the site. This accounts for the deepest area of the site and as such has a localised environment capable of supporting a range of different species from those found in shallower areas. There are additional proposed MCZs currently being considered located in English territorial waters and offshore waters off the Cell 1 coastline, which include the following sites, which will be reviewed as the SEA develops:  Coquet to St Mary’s;  Farnes East;  Fulmar; and  Runswick Bay

3-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 4 SMP2 Action Plans

4.1 Introduction A review of the SMP2 Action Plans and coastal strategies has been undertaken to understand the type, location and proposed year of implementation of the actions. The full list of actions is presented in the tables in Appendix D. 4.2 Categorisation of actions To assist in the scoping and assessment of the actions, they have been categorised as follows:  Asset Management and Maintenance  Development Planning and Adaptation  Monitoring  Scheme  Study and Investigation Tables have been presented in Appendix D for each type of action. 4.2.1 Asset management and maintenance actions In many locations along the Cell 1 coastline, structures exist that contribute to providing flood and coastal erosion risk management. The actions in this category relate to existing assets that require maintaining or sustaining for coastal protection purposes and take the form of refurbishment or repairs to the structures. Due to climate change, some defence assets require improvement works to ensure the current level of protection offered is sustained over time as a result of rising sea levels. Maintenance of existing assets is often ongoing throughout the lifetime of the SMP. 4.2.2 Development planning and adaptation actions This category of non‐structural actions includes the production and review of strategies, plans and appraisals. This can range from strategies for structural coastal defences to management plans of natural habitats (i.e. dune and beach management plans). Land use planning is included in this category, which can form an important aspect of adaptation to coastal processes for communities along the coastline. Included in this category are those actions which in future epochs of the SMP will become schemes; this typically includes planning for future MR schemes and the relocation of other assets (i.e. caravan parks, golf courses, access steps and car parks) that are at risk of coastal erosion. Not all of the actions categorised as “Development Planning and Adaptation” will be considered in the SEA because either their timeframe extends beyond 2020 and/or due to the nature of the action, they are not anticipated to cause environmental impacts. This includes actions related to governance (i.e. ensuring that schemes are included in the relevant budgets and communicating the SMP to communities). 4.2.3 Monitoring actions Those actions categorised as monitoring generally apply to more than one MA. Monitoring is an important part of bettering our understanding of coastal process and future trends and therefore it is imperative that they are included in the SMP2 action plans. However, as the actions relating to monitoring are typically non‐ intrusive and do not leave permanent impacts (or at least over any geographical area that would be considered significant) this category of actions has been scoped out of requiring further assessment. Section

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 4-1 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 4 SMP2 ACTION PLANS

4 includes a description of the monitoring that is currently being undertaken within Cell 1 and the actions are also listed in the table in Appendix D.

4.2.4 Scheme actions The actions in this category have the greatest likelihood of causing environmental impacts as they typically involve flood and coastal defence schemes, which by their nature can cause permanent and direct environmental impacts. Schemes will often be the result of outcomes from existing strategies and thus are typically to be implemented (i.e. constructed) within the timeframe of the current SMP2 (i.e. within the first 10 years). Following the identification of the status of the actions, those schemes that have already been constructed or are currently under construction (i.e. for which an EIA has been produced) will be scoped out of further assessment in agreement with the CPAs. 4.2.5 Study and investigation actions As with actions related to monitoring, studies and investigations are generally considered to be non‐ intrusive and by their nature do not have any permanent or direct environment impacts. The studies usually involve the gathering of baseline information and the investigations are typically to determine how something will be achieved. However, there are several locations within the Tyneside to Flamborough Head SMP2 area where the actions under this category include investigations of contamination at several locations along the coast. To summarise these include:  Marsden Bay (MA04)  Harbour Quarry (MA05)  Halliwell Banks (MA08)  Dawdon beach (MA09) Whilst investigations into contaminated land may be intrusive and result in temporary localised impacts, it is considered that through implementation of best practice measures impacts, these impacts can be managed appropriately to ensure no permanent environmental impacts that require consideration as a result of the actions. The investigations in these locations are necessary as these areas are at flood or coastal erosion risk, which has the potential to cause pollution. The risk may be realised where the SMP2 policy in these locations is NAI (or MR). The environmental impacts of this risk has been considered as part of the SEA of the SMP2 policies and is not considered further in this assessment. 4.3 Scoping of actions Table 4.1 summarises the actions by type that have been scoped into (shaded in green) and out (shaded orange) of the SEA assessment. Through consultation at the Action Plan workshop in September 2015 (see Section 2.2.5), the status of the actions will be determined and those completed actions will not be considered further in the SEA of the Action Plans. As discussed in Section 2.3 those actions due to be undertaken beyond 2020/21 have been scoped out of requiring assessment at the present time; this approach will be agreed with the consultees at the Action Plan workshop. Table 4.1. Summary of Actions from Action Plans. Category Northumberland and North River Tyne to Flamborough Head Tyneside SMP2

4-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 4 SMP2 ACTION PLANS

Category Northumberland and North River Tyne to Flamborough Head Tyneside SMP2 Asset Management and Actions not yet undertaken and Actions not yet undertaken and Maintenance scheduled to start by 2020/2021 scheduled to start by 2020/2021 scoped in scoped in Development Planning and Actions not yet undertaken and Actions not yet undertaken and Adaptation scheduled to start by 2020/2021 scheduled to start by 2020/2021 scoped in scoped in Monitoring All actions scoped out All actions scoped out Schemes Actions not yet undertaken and Actions not yet undertaken and scheduled to start by 2020/2021 scheduled to start by 2020/2021 scoped in scoped in Study and Investigation All actions scoped out All actions scoped out

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 4-3 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

SECTION 5 Scope of the SEA

5.1 Scoping environmental issues Table 5.1 summarises the SEA receptors that are proposed to be addressed within the SEA of the SMP2 Action Plans. This is based upon the SEA receptors considered in both the SMPs, which are also summarised in Table 5.1. For example, both SMPs scoped out impacts related to noise and therefore it was not considered that this would be a cell‐wide issue either. The SEA of the Actions in the SMP Action Plans and Coastal Strategies will not address any site specific impacts likely to result during the implementation of any built solution, for example construction impacts that might arise during the building or raising of coastal defences. These issues are more appropriately considered during project level Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken for specific schemes. Table 5.1. Scoping of SEA Receptors and Summary of SEA Receptors from the SMP2s Receptor Scoped Comment Summary of SMP2 Scoping of In/Out Receptors Population In A primary purpose of the The Northumberland SMP identified SMP2 is to manage the flood that for the preferred policy there (includes Human and erosion risk to the were no impacts upon population Health and vulnerable population along the coastline during all three epochs. communities) and to address the impacts The Tyne and Flamborough Head that flooding events and SMP identified a loss of hard assets coastal erosion can have upon at several locations, including human health. properties around Runswick Bay, Where the SMP policy is HTL Robin Hoods Bay, Cayton Bay and in and ATL the actions associated communities to the south of Filey with these policies are likely to Bay. maintain or improve the existing level of protection and it is not anticipated there will be any negative effects upon population where this policy applies. Where the SMP policy is NAI or MR the associated action for implementation of the policy can have consequences, particularly where adaptation is necessary, therefore this receptor is scoped in where this is the preferred SMP policy. Material Assets In Material assets have the The Northumberland SMP identified potential to be affected by the that for the preferred policy there (includes any man‐ actions in the Action Plans. were no impacts upon material made physical assets during all three epochs. structures with a focus

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 5-1 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 5 SCOPE OF THE SEA

Receptor Scoped Comment Summary of SMP2 Scoping of In/Out Receptors upon transport, Tyne and Flamborough Head SMP infrastructure, critical identified that the main centres of services, major development are maintained and industry, landfills and locally some roads are likely to assets associated with require realignment. For major tourism – i.e. caravan industries, the policies generally parks) work to sustain their activities, however, there are impacts for some of the more softer commercial activities along much of the frontage (the golf courses at Seaton Carew, at Whitby and Filey and the caravan parks to the north of Hartlepool, at Coatham, south of Whitby and again at Filey). Climatic factors Out As actions will not significantly Scoped out of both SMP2 affect the impacts of climate assessments as SMPs will not affect change (they will only climate change. facilitate to accommodate them), climate change is not considered further as an individual SEA receptor. Air Quality Out It is considered that the Scoped out of both SMP2s as it was actions will not lead to an considered that the SMP2 will not improvement or reduction in lead to an improvement or air quality. The effects of any reduction in air quality at a regional specific FCERM activities, such or cell‐wide level. as schemes that may have temporary localised impacts, would be considered further at project EIA stage. Noise Out The actions will not have a The SMPs did not identify significant significant effect on noise at a effects on noise at a cell‐wide level regional level and has been scoped out. The effects of any specific FCERM activities, such as schemes that may have temporary localised impacts would be considered further at project EIA stage. Water and In Actions have the potential to Although the Northumberland SMP hydrogeomorphology affect the coastal and identified that for the preferred estuarine waterbodies within policy there were no negative (includes water the SMP2 area e.g. changes in impacts upon water during all three quality, quantity i.e. the water quality of shellfish epochs, the WFD assessment Flood risk and use as a waters and bathing waters, identified that there are some MAs,

5-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 5 SCOPE OF THE SEA

Receptor Scoped Comment Summary of SMP2 Scoping of In/Out Receptors resource) and changes in water where the SMP2 policies have the resources. Any potential potential to contribute to failure of changes to the waterbodies Environmental Objectives. The most will be assessed through a significant of these is the potential WFD Assessment. failure to meet Environmental Objective WFD1 (no changes affecting high status sites). The Tyne and Flamborough Head SMP did not specifically consider impacts upon the water environment, however impacts were considered in the WFD of the SMP. This identified several MAs where the SMP2 policies have the potential to contribute to failure of Environmental Objectives. The SMP and WFD also identified a risk to water from the erosion of contaminated land and of saline intrusion into groundwater bodies. Biodiversity In There are a number of The Northumberland SMP identified international, national and that for the preferred policy there (includes flora and local designated conservation are negative impacts upon fauna both terrestrial sites within the SMP biodiversity for MA2 from the first and marine) boundaries, which have epoch onwards. Impacts of the potential to be affected (both preferred policy in the other MAs positively and negatively) by were positive for all three epochs. the actions. The Tyne and Flamborough Head SMP identified negative impacts due to natural process resulting in the partial loss of designated sites. Soil & Geology In Where the actions are to The Northumberland SMP identified implement an SMP policy of that for the preferred policy there (includes earth system NAI or MR there will be a were no negative impacts upon soils processes) change in the nature of soils during all three epochs. but this will enable natural The Tyne and Flamborough Head geological processes to SMP did not specifically consider continue. impacts upon soils. However any Where the actions are to impacts upon geology and soils are facilitate implementing an likely to be due to natural SMP policy of HTL (or ATL), processes. there may be impacts upon earth processes. Land Use Out Residential properties will be Land use was scoped out of considered under the assessment in the Northumberland

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 5-3 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 5 SCOPE OF THE SEA

Receptor Scoped Comment Summary of SMP2 Scoping of In/Out Receptors ‘Population and Human SMP. Health’ receptor heading and The Tyne and Flamborough Head areas of landfills (or known SMP identified a loss to agriculture contamination) will be dealt along much of the frontage. with under the Material Assets Agricultural land is likely to be lost heading. where there are policies of NAI or Agricultural land is likely to be MR, however this facilitates natural lost where actions are processes. Areas where the policy is required to implement a HTL (or ATL), there is the potential policy of NAI or MR however for land uses to remain unchanged this facilitates natural and agricultural land to be processes. Actions to protected. implement a policy of HTL (or ATL) have potential for land uses to remain unchanged and agricultural land to be protected. Cultural Heritage In There is potential for cultural The Northumberland SMP identified heritage features to be no negative impacts upon cultural affected by the actions. heritage during all three epochs. The Tyne and Flamborough Head SMP identified that there are several areas where features will suffer loss through erosion. The SMP attempts to identify where there are risks, which will allow prioritisation of recording prior to loss of the feature. Landscape In There is potential for the The Northumberland SMP identified actions to have positive or that for the preferred policy there negative effects on key were no negative impacts upon landscape features. landscape during all three epochs; all impacts upon landscape were Visual amenity has been positive. scoped out as any visual changes will be subject to the The Tyne and Flamborough Head nature and location of SMP does not identify any localised implementation of significant impacts upon landscape, policies and actions, which will rather more localised impacts based be assessed further at project upon the type of material used for EIA stage. structures. The Plan aims to restrict further encroachment of defence over undefended areas. Where defences are in place, the plan aims to offer opportunity for less intrusive approaches to defence.

5-4 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 5 SCOPE OF THE SEA

Interrelationships between the SEA receptors outlined in Table 5.1 will be included in the SEA where relevant i.e. where SMP policies and actions give rise to the potential for secondary or cumulative impacts.

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 5-5 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

SECTION 6 SEA Framework

6.1 Approach to environmental appraisal This section describes the appraisal processes that will be used for predicting and assessing the environmental effects that are likely to arise. The general methodology will follow the various SEA stages in ‘A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’ published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005. 6.1.1 SEA of SMP2 and coastal strategy action plans The key outcome of the assessment will include identifying recommendations on refining the Action Plans based on the environmental criteria considered, including indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts. The environmental assessment will be undertaken, and tabulated in an assessment matrix. Following the detailed assessments, any relevant findings and recommendations will be recorded in summary form, for inclusion in the SEA Environmental Report, with the assessment matrices provided in appendices to aid both transparency and clarity. The Action Plans will be evaluated with consideration of their potential for significant environmental effects on the different environmental receptors that have been scoped in, using assessment criteria. The assessment of these environmental effects will be informed by professional judgement and experience with other coastal risk management related SEAs, as well as an assessment of national, regional and local trends. In some cases, the assessment will draw upon mapping data and GIS to identify areas of potential pressure, for example due to erosion risk or presence of environmental designations. A table will be used to summarise the evaluation of how the environment would be affected, positively or negatively, from the implementation of the actions, in relation to environmental objectives (See Section 6.2). As part of the cell‐wide assessment, the in‐combination and cumulative impacts of implementing the two SMPs across Cell 1, which go beyond a single MA, will be identified and assessed. The key outcome of the assessment is to identify where it may be appropriate to reconsider the preferred SMP policies if they contribute to adverse environmental impacts on a cell‐wide basis. 6.2 Environmental objectives 6.2.1 Introduction The baseline information and relevant key environmental issues identified within both the SMP2 documents have been used to define a series of draft SEA objectives for the assessment of the Action Plans. These objectives have been developed in order to assess the environmental effects. The development of SEA objectives is an iterative process. The proposed objectives will be reviewed in the light of comments received on this scoping report and further understanding of the key environmental problems, issues and opportunities concerning the coastal frontage as the SEA process progresses. The baseline information contained in both SMP documents and additional data summarised in Section 4 and Appendix C have been used to define assessment criteria. The criteria are posed as questions to guide later stages of the assessment and to help describe the effects on the environment. 6.2.2 SEA objectives The draft SEA objectives and assessment criteria that are proposed to be used to assess the environmental impacts of the Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2 and the River Tyne to Flamborough SMP2 Action Plans are described in Table 6.1.

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 6-1 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 6 SEA FRAMEWORK

Table 6.1. Draft SEA Objectives for assessing Action Plans SEA Receptor SEA Objective Assessment Criteria (Indicators). Would the Action plan….. Population and Minimise significant adverse Result in a deterioration of the quality of life Material Assets impacts upon people and for people and communities? communities Material Assets Minimise significant adverse Result in the loss, degradation, or function of impacts upon material assets. material assets? Protect material assets? Water Manage and minimise the risk of Lead to an increased risk in pollution to the pollution to the water water environment? environment. Biodiversity, flora, To use natural processes to Result in damage to, fragmentation or loss of fauna support and facilitate ecosystem existing designated wildlife sites, habitats functions and the integrity of and species? designations. Enable natural coastal processes to continue? Cultural Heritage Manage and minimise significant Cause the loss of or damage to heritage adverse impacts upon designated assets? cultural heritage assets and their Have a detrimental impact upon the setting setting. of heritage assets? Landscape Minimise significant adverse Cause permanent significantly adverse visual impacts upon the landscape. intrusion in the local landscape?

6.2.3 Assessment methodology and SEA scoring criteria This section describes the appraisal process that we will use for predicting and assessing the environmental effects of implementing the SMP Action Plans. The general methodology will follow the various SEA stages in “A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive” published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005. The Action Plans will be evaluated with consideration of their potential for significant environmental effects on the different SEA topics/receptors using the assessment criteria in Table 6.2. The assessment of these environmental effects will be informed by professional judgement and experience with other flood‐risk management SEAs. In some cases, the assessment will draw upon mapping data and GIS to identify areas of potential pressure, for example due to flood risk or presence of environmental designations. A table will be used to evaluate how the environment would be affected, positively or negatively, from the implementation of the Actions Plans in relation to the SEA objectives. The effects will be assessed based on their likely impact duration and magnitude, and described in terms of their nature (i.e. positive or negative), permanence or reversibility, spatial scale (i.e. local, regional or national) and temporal scale (i.e. short term or long term). The significance of effects upon each of the SEA objectives will then be evaluated using the scoring criteria outlined in Table 6.2. The determination of significance would take into account the criteria set out in the SEA Directive’s Annex II. Impacts can be positive, negative or neutral. Positive and negative impacts can be minor, moderate or major. When carrying out the assessment we have also used professional judgement and considered aspects such as duration of impact, sensitivity of receptor and spatial extent.

6-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014 SECTION 6 SEA FRAMEWORK

Table 6.2: Scale used to describe the impacts in the SEA Scale Key

Major adverse ‐ ‐ ‐

Moderate adverse ‐ ‐

Minor adverse ‐

Neutral/Negligible 0

Uncertain ?

Minor beneficial +

Moderate beneficial ++

Major beneficial +++

Short Term St

Long Term Lt

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 6-3 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

SECTION 7 Next Steps

7.1 Next steps in SEA process This Scoping Report will be used to inform key partners and stakeholders, and seek their views on, data gathered to date, the SEA process and the concepts under consideration. Comments are invited on this report over a period of five weeks by Friday 2nd October 2015 and should be provided as indicated in Section 1.4. All comments received will be taken into account in the SEA Environmental Report, and where appropriate, changes made to our understanding of the environmental characteristics of the SMP areas, the key issues relating to flood and coastal risk management, the influences on and from external plans and the identified SEA objectives. The Environmental Report will be the next output in the SEA process and it will document the assessment of the Action Plans against the SEA objectives. The ‘assessment criteria’ and environmental objectives will be the criteria by which the environmental elements of the Actions Plans (and their in‐combination impacts) will be appraised.

CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL 7-1 COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Appendix A: Figures

Appendix B: Feedback Form

Cell 1 SMP2 Action Plans SEA and WFD SMP2 Environmental Scoping Report Feedback Form

Project Cell 1 SEA and WFD Client Scarborough Borough Council

Your Name Your Organisation

Please return this form to: [email protected] by Friday 2nd October 2015. We are interested in your views on the Cell 1 SEA and WFD project. Please refer to the Environmental Scoping Report when completing this form. Question 1. Are there other bodies/groups (In addition to those listed in Table 2.1) that have an interest in the Action Plans of the SMP2 and Coastal Strategies that we should be consulting?

Question 2. Are you aware of any flood risk and coastal erosion management issues that have arisen since the publication of the SMP2 documents as a result of the preferred SMP 2 policies?

Question 3. Do you have any comments on the SEA receptors scoped in or out of the assessment for the

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

SMP2 Action Plans?

Question 4. Do you have any comments on the SEA Objectives proposed for the assessment for the SMP2 Action Plans?

Question 5. Are you aware of any Strategies (with a primary purpose of managing or that could contribute to flood risk and coastal erosion management) that are not identified in the list in Table 1.1 of this Environmental Scoping Report?

Question 6. Are you aware of any present or future situations, circumstances or locations which may provide opportunities for environmental enhancements or gains? (I.e. such as contribution to WFD objectives or habitat creation).

7-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Question 7. Do you have any other comments on the proposed SEAs?

Signed: Date:

Appendix C: Baseline Data and Issues Tables

Table C1. Baseline Data Signposting Table.

Environment Natural Biodiversity, Appendix D Appendix E Appendix D Appendix E Issues and Objectives Environment Flora and Natural Environment: section D2 Over all issues defined by PDZ Natural Environment: section D2 D2.2.2 Over all issues defined by MU area Fauna Nature Conservation: section D2.2 area: Nature Conservation: section D2.2 South Tyneside Area Non‐Technical D2.2.2 International Designations: 1 Scottish Border to Holy Island D2.2.2 Designated sites Summary Special Areas of Conservation 2 Bamburgh to Boulmer International Designations: 4.4.1 Overview Special Protection Areas 3 Seaton Point to Beacon Hill Special Areas of Conservation Sunderland City Area Non‐Technical Summary Ramsar sites (SUPPLEMENT A ‐ boundary Maps) 4 Beacon Hill to Beacon Point Special Protection Areas (Section 2: boundary maps, 4.4.1 Overview D2.2.3 National Designations: 5 Newbiggin moor to Seaton includes Ramsar sites) Easington Area Non‐Technical Summary Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SUPPLEMENT A ‐ boundary Sluice National Designations: 4.4.1 Overview (County Durham council) Maps) 6 Seaton Sluice to River Tyne Sites of Special Scientific Interest Hartlepool Borough area Non‐Technical National Nature Reserves (NNRs) National Nature Reserves (NNRs) Summary Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 4.4.1 Overview D2.2.4 Regionally and locally: important classifications Regionally and locally important sites: Redcar and Cleveland area Non‐Technical Natural Areas Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) Summary Local Biodiversity Action Plans Local Nature Reserves (Section 1: MAGIC general 4.4.1 Overview Local Nature Reserves search boundary maps) Scarborough area Non‐Technical Summary Heritage Coast Other Conservation Areas and habitats: 4.4.1 Overview D2.2.5 Other conservation areas and habitats National Trust sites Sites of Nature Conservation Importance RSPB Reserves Natural Areas (areas 99 and 100) Maritime areas Coastal Dune Habitat National Parks Heritage Coast (Section 1: MAGIC general search boundary maps) Designated sites boundary maps: Earth Heritage: section D2.3 Littoral sediments Maritime cliffs and slopes Natural Area 100: Saltburn to Bridlington Littoral and sub‐littoral chalk Littoral rock Maritime cliff and slopes Coastal vegetated shingle Inshore sublittoral sediments Littoral sediment Earth Heritage Geology Earth Heritage: section D2.3 Appendix D D2.3.2 Geological Conservation Review (GCR) Sites Geological Sites (RIGS) list of Sites not presented D2.3.3 Geological Interest of Natural Areas

Coastal Appendix C Appendix C Baseline Process Understanding

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

Northumberland and North Tyneside SMP2 Action Plan River Tyne To Flamborough Head SMP2 Issues and Thematic SEA Receptor Natural and Built environment Baseline Defining features and Issues Natural and Built environment Baseline Defining features and Issues Objectives review Within the SMP2 study area Within the SMP2 study area processes Baseline Process Understanding – Section 1 C1 Assessment of Shoreline Dynamics C1 Assessment of Shoreline Dynamics C1.3 Localised Coastal Process Understanding C1.1 Introduction (The local coastal process units) Units 1 – 43 C1.2 General Overview C2 Defence Assessment Bedrock Geology C3 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Pleistocene Geology Coastal Geomorphology Impact of Colliery Waste on the Coastal Geomorphology Beaches Offshore Coastal Erosion Sediment Transport Relative Sea Level Change Mining Subsidence C1.3 Localised Coastal Process Understanding Unit 1 ‐ Scottish Border to Saltpan How Unit 2 ‐ Saltpan How to Harkess Rocks (including Holy Island) Unit 3 ‐ Harkess Rocks to Castle Point Unit 4 ‐ Castle Point to Seaton Point Unit 5 ‐ Seaton Point to Beacon Hill Unit 6 ‐ Beacon Hill to Snab Point Unit 7 ‐ Snab Point to Beacon Point Unit 8 ‐ Beacon Point to Seaton Sluice Unit 7 ‐ Seaton Sluice to River Tyne C2 Defence Assessment Database information tables PDZ/MA/PU Maps ‐ maps and defence locations Baseline Process Understanding ‐ Section 2 C3 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise C3.2 Sea Level Rise C3.3 Storminess C3.4 Precipitation C4 Baseline Scenarios (present implications with NAI) over the three epochs (Years: 0 ‐ 20 (2025), 20 ‐ 50 (2055), 50 ‐ 100 (2105)) for each Coastal Process Unit. Shoreline position maps. Appendix H Estuary Assessment H2.2 Open Coast – Estuary Interactions H3 Assessment of the River Tweed Estuary H4 Assessment of the River Aln Estuary H5 Assessment of the River Coquet Estuary H6 Assessment of the River Wansbeck Estuary

7-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Contaminated Soil Appendix D land Contaminated Land: Section D6 D6.2 Features

Landscape and Landscape Appendix D Appendix D character Landscape and character: section D3 Landscape & Character: section D3 D3.2 Landscape and Visual Features D3.2 Landscape and Visual Features: D3.2.1 Area 14 ‐ Tyne and Wear Lowlands D3.2.2 Area 15 ‐ Durham Magnesian Limestone Plateau D3.2.3 Area 23 ‐ Tees Lowlands D3.2.4 Area 25 ‐ North Yorkshire Moors and Cleveland Hills D3.2.5 Area 26 ‐ Vale of Pickering D3.2.5 Area 27 ‐ Yorkshire Wolds

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

Heritage Historic Cultural Appendix D Erosion / flood risk threatening Appendix D environment heritage Historic Environment: section D4 heritage asset Historic Environment: section D4 D4.2 Terrestrial: D4.2 Terrestrial D4.2.1 Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) ‐ Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs)National D4.2.2 Listed Buildings Parks, archaeological sites and listed buildings: D4.2.3 Registered Battlefields D4.2.2 1 River Tyne to Souter Point (Management D4.2.4 Registered Parks and Gardens Units 1 ‐5) D4.2.5 Heritage Coast D4.2.3 2 Souter Point to Pincushion (Management D4.2.6 North East Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment Units 6 – 8) SUPPLEMENT B ‐ complete list of all artefacts, buildings and D4.2.4 3 Hartlepool Bay (Management Unit 12) structures of archaeological interest within 100m of the D4.2.5 4 Tees Bay (Management Unit 13) Northumberland Coastline D4.2.6 5 Coatham to Redcar (Management Unit 14) D4.3 Marine D4.2.7 6 Marske & Saltburn Sands (Management no protected wrecks Unit 15) D4.2.8 7 Huntcliffe to Boulby (Management Units 16 – 18) D4.2.9 8 Cowbar to Sandsend Wyke (Management Units 19 ‐ 22) D4.2.10 9 Whitby to Hundale Point (Management Units 23 – 25) D4.2.11 10 Hundale Point to Filey Brigg (Management Units 26 – 29) D4.2.12 11 Filey to Flamborough Head (Management Units 30 – 32) D4.3 Marine ‐ Protected wreck sites D4.3.1 Seaton Carew Filey Bay wreck not included

Commercial Current and Population Appendix D Appendix D future land use Current and Future Land Use: section D5 Current & Future Land Use: section D5 D5.3 Features D5.3 Features D5.4 Future Land Use/Planning Targets set by Local Authority D5.3.1 South Tyneside District Council Development D5.3.2 Sunderland City Council Plans D5.3.3 Former District of Easington Council (now Durham County Council) D5.3.4 Hartlepool Borough Council D5.3.5 Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council D5.3.6 Scarborough Borough Council D5.3.7 East Riding of Yorkshire Council D5.4 Future land use /planning targets as set by local plans Recreational Population Appendix D Erosion / flood risk of Current and Future Land Use: section D5 recreational assets (e.g. beach, golf course) D5.3 Features Erosion / flood risk for coastal

7-4 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Hard assets Material assets Appendix D Erosion / flood risk threatening Appendix C Baseline Process Understanding development zones and Current and Future Land Use: section D5 C2 Defence Assessment material assets D5.3 Features Redevelopment plans within the Details the condition of the hard defences along the D5.4 Future Land Use/Planning Targets set by Local Authority coastal zone SMP coast between the River Tyne and Flamborough Development Head. Plans

Table C2. Key Environmental Constraints and Issues

Biodiversity, Flora A large proportion of the coast is designated as sites of Threat of invasive species Vegetated sea cliffs, Vegetated cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic and Fauna international or national nature conservation importance. The Loss of habitat, particularly salt marsh and rocky shore and coast, Taxus baccata (yew) woods of the British Isles, Reefs, coastline provides a wide diversity of species and habitat, opportunities for habitat creation Sea caves including low‐lying sandy beaches, sand dunes, intertidal Recreational disturbance of protected habitats

mud/sand flats and rocky shorelines, cliff and sea caves Inadequate management of designated sites

Coastal squeeze ensure enhancement of the natural ecological features Special Areas of Conservation: Special Areas of Conservation: Berwick and North Northumberland Coast Durham Coast Intrusion of saline water to Castle Eden Dene SAC/SSSI/NNR

Tweed Estuary Castle Eden Dene Coastal Sand Dunes ‐ habitat loss by coastal squeeze North Northumberland Dunes Beast Cliff – Whitby (Robin Hood's Bay) Flamborough Head Special Protection Areas / Ramsar Sites Special Protection Areas / Ramsar Sites Northumbria Coast The Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Lindisfarne Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar Farne Islands Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA Coquet Island

Sites of Special Scientific Interest x 18 Sites of Special Scientific Interest x 32 Northumberland Shore BOLDON PASTURES Tweed Catchment Rivers ‐ England: Lower Tweed and BOULBY QUARRIES Whiteadder CASTLE EDEN DENE Lindisfarne CAYTON, CORNELIAN & SOUTH BAYS Bamburgh Coast and Hills CLEADON HILL Bamburgh Dunes COWPEN MARSH The Farne Islands DURHAM COAST Newton Links FILEY BRIGG Castle Point to Cullernose Point FLAMBOROUGH HEAD Howick to Seaton Point GRISTHORPE BAY & RED CLIFF Alnmouth Saltmarsh and Dunes HARTLEPOOL SUBMERGED FOREST Warkworth Dunes and Saltmarsh HARTON DOWN HILL Coquet Island HAWTHORN DENE Hadston Links HAWTHORN QUARRY Cresswell Ponds HAYBURN WYKE Cresswell and Newbiggin Shores HODDY COWS SPRING

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

National Nature Reserves x 2 National Nature Reserves x 3 Lindisfarne DURHAM COAST Farne Islands CASTLE EDEN DENE TEESMOUTH

Biodiversity Action Plans Saline lagoons issues: pollution; erosion; drying‐out; rising sea levels; Habitats within the SMP boundaries of particular concern coastal squeeze (including potential threat to little tern habitat) Saline lagoons altering of the natural salinity profile and coastal defence works. The Coastal Sand Dunes Ensure that shoreline management does not have a detrimental Coastal saltmarsh and mudflat target for this habitat is to maintain the current extent of these Biodiversity Action Plans ‐ not identified within the SMP2 impact on saltmarsh habitat. Coastal sand dune lagoons by 2010. Coastal Sand Dunes ‐ habitat loss by coastal squeeze Whin grassland Coastal saltmarsh and mudflat issues: threat from land reclamation; Rocky shore, reefs and islands disruption of coastal processes through coastal development causing Native woodlands erosion and drowning; pollution; invasive species and overgrazing and Reedbeds disturbance from recreational and military activity to birds. 2010 Coastal heathland conservation targets to increase the extent of coastal saltmarsh to 326 Maritime cliff and slope ha, mudflat to 3,082 ha and increase extent of coastal saltmarsh Lowland heathland extent in Northumberland by 2020. Coastal birds Coastal sand dunes issues: under threat from inappropriate Common seal management through over or under grazing; erosion from trampling and recreation and also from increased waved action brought about by the deflection of waves by hard sea defences. Coastal squeeze, coastal development, sand extraction, non‐native and native invasive species. Target was to maintain extent by 2010 Whin Grassland issues: greatest threats include quarrying and intensification of agriculture. Also grazing, trampling, scrub invasion, woodland planting, golf course management and fragmentation. Targets: maintain the extent of 19 sites by 2010 and achieve favourable or recovering condition; Restore Whin grassland to offset historical losses by 2015 Rocky Shore, Reefs and Islands issues: under threat from oil spills and aggregate extraction, fishing (of particular treat to S. spinulosa reefs), mooring of vessels, both commercial and recreational. Native Woodland issues: regeneration of non‐native tree species, lack of appropriate management, resulting in lack of regeneration and no control over grazing, invasive species, fragmentation. Species action plans are in place for red squirrel, dormouse, black grouse and farmland birds. 2015 Targets to achieve favourable condition of 70% of ancient and semi‐natural woodland and 30% of plantation on ancient woodland sites have been restored or are under gradual restoration.

Reedbed issues: Pollution (including nutrient enrichment (eutrophication), water runoff and mine water, fly tipping, land drainage and abstraction; inappropriate management, causing dying out and subsequent scrub encroachment, and succession to woodland; habitat loss due to development, grazing and agriculture;

7-6 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Local Nature Reserves x 3 Local Nature Reserves x 18 Heritage Coast x 1 Heritage Coast x 3 areas The Northumberland Heritage Coast and AONB (Berwick to the Durham Coquet estuary) North Yorkshire and Cleveland Renown for its long sandy beaches, dunes, high rocky cliffs, Flamborough Head isolated islands and shortage of visitors: RSPB Reserves x 1 (Bempton Cliffs) Cocklawburn ‐ for its ancient fossil beds; National Trust x 15 owned sections of the coast Warkworth ‐ for its large expanse of sand dunes; National Parks x 1 Low Newton ‐ for its rare marine species; and North York Moors National Park ‐ designated in 1952 to Bamburgh ‐ for its coastal sand dunes protected behind a row of conserve the areas of heather moorland, traditional farmland, reefs. attractive villages, woodlands and 25 miles of the coastline, Also designated for its bird life: characterised by rugged cliffscapes and picturesque fishing RSPB Reserve x 1 (at Coquet Island) villages. National Trust x 6 owned sections of the coast Natural Profile Area x 1 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance x 20 Natural Area Profile 99: Tyne to Tees Coast Natural Profile Area Natural Area Profile 98: Northumberland Coast Natural Area Profile 1: North Northumberland Coastal Plain Natural Area Profile 5: Northumbria Coal Measures The Mid North Sea Marine Natural Area

Soil, Geology and The Northumberland coastline is of high geological and Geomorphologically, the coast can be divided into three Geomorphology geomorphological interest. which are reflected in the designation distinct units: of SSSIs with geological interest features, and number designated The Tyne and Wear/Durham coast comprises Magnesian Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites Limestone overlain by glacial till and importantly, has been heavily modified by anthropogenic coal mining activity. The northern part of the Yorkshire coast is dominated by Jurassic sandstones and mudstones overlain by glacial till and has been sculpted into a headland‐bay form. Many of the bays are deeply incised into the general trend of the coast. The southern part of the Yorkshire coast comprises high chalk cliffs ending in the promontory of Flamborough Head. Sites of Special Scientific Interest with geological features x 6 Sites of Special Scientific Interest with geological features x Lindisfarne Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites Bamburgh Coast and Hills Castle Point to Cullernose Point The Tyne to Tees Coast contains several nationally important Howick to Seaton Point geological sites, most of which have been designated as SSSIs, Cresswell and Newbiggin Shores GCR sites which is a reflection of the geological or Low Hauxley Shore geomorphological value of the coast. Features support a

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

Natural Area 100: Saltburn to Bridlington: Littoral and sub‐littoral chalk, Littoral rock, Maritime cliff and slopes, Coastal vegetated shingle, Inshore sublittoral sediments, Littoral sediment associated with flora and fauna.

The underlying geology provides a strong influence on the behaviour of the Northumberland coastline and is formed in general by two distinct series: the harder Carboniferous Limestone and Millstone Grits, of the Lower and Upper Carboniferous periods respectively, dominating the northern section of the coast from the Scottish border down to Alnmouth, and the less resistant Middle, Upper Carboniferous, Coal Measures extending down to the River Tyne.

Erosion of the shoreline is mainly influenced by the geomorphology and exposure to wave and tidal action. Other factors include general weathering, chemical and bio‐chemical deterioration and ground water. Erosion is slow in comparison to other areas of the English coastline.

The most significant changes could arise from sea level rise, in effect swamping key rock outcrops, such as at Boulmer, Marden Rocks at Alnmouth, the Bondi and Hadston Carrs to the north of Druridge Bay, and the rocks fronting Cresswell.

Coastal processes The typical pattern of wave climate offshore records a dominant wave approach from the north and north east with significant but reduced frequency of exposure from directions south of east. The general pattern of drift is north to south. The only significant influence on this nearshore drift system is in the area of Holy Island and the Farne Islands where the whole coastal and nearshore platform has developed in line with the prevailing wave direction. Movement of material is anticipated to be onshore‐offshore with little direct interaction between bays. Overall many of the bays are thought to have reached a relatively stable condition but still subject to movement longshore depending on wave conditions. Druridge and Newbiggin in particular have not demonstrated such stability. Druridge shows continued loss of the backshore and associated with this erosion. Newbiggin a lack of sediment supply, associated with defences forward of the natural shoreline and exacerbated by mining subsidence has resulted in considerable pressure for erosion. A scheme is now in place that aims to address these issues by artificially drawing forward the shoreline creating conditions for a sustainable recharge of the foreshore.

Water and Transitional and Coastal (TraC) water bodies x 12 SMP2 WFD Discussion and conclusions 2 Coastal water bodies Potential deterioration in respect to WFD were highlighted in Hydromorphology Not designated: Farne Islands to Newton Haven water body (MA06, MA08, MA07 and 4 Transitional water bodies 2009 as MA13, MA19, and MA20. Northumberland North ‐ Good Ecological Status MA09): Potential to fail to meet Environmental Objective WFD1 Freshwater bodies (scoped out) Groundwater investigation for Tees Bay (MA13) Holy Island and Budle Bay ‐ Poor Ecological Status (no changes affecting high status sites). Avoid disruption to existing ecological interests (NAI advised to be Farne Islands to Newton Haven ‐ High Ecological Status 8 Groundwater bodies considered) at Cowbar Cottages (MA19) HTL for the defence of property and assets of Beadnell village (MA08) Northumberland South ‐ Good Ecological Status Investigations at Port Mulgrave (MA20) to investigate could result in the Hadston Links and Cresswell Ponds ‐ Not assessed maintenance of the old harbour walls. loss of highly valuable rocky outcrop and sand foreshores. Tyne and Wear ‐ Moderate Ecological Status Potential deterioration in (maintenance identified as HRA IROPI and compensation of Tweed ‐ Good Ecological Status Ecological Status from contamination and erosion rates of the loss/deterioration of habitats identified) Aln ‐ Not assessed coastline: monitoring advised within MA05, MA08, MA09, and

7-8 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Northumberland and North Tyneside SMP2 action Plan River Tyne To Flamborough Head SMP2 SEA Receptor Natural and Built environment Baseline Environmental Issues, Constraints and Opportunities Natural and Built environment Baseline Environmental Issues, Constraints and Opportunities Heavily modified waterbodies: Annual topographic surveys required at Holy Island (MA04) and MA10 Coquet ‐ Not assessed monitoring of erosion rates around the outfall of Meggie’s Burn potential saline intrusion into the Wear Magnesian Limestone Wansbeck ‐ Not assessed (MA23). GWB at MA05. Monitoring advised. Blyth ‐ Good Ecological Potential Investigations will be needed into the management options for the Boundary issues MA11 and MA12 is advised to align with the Tyne ‐ Moderate Ecological Potential mouth of the Wansbeck estuary (MA21): ecological impacts of the water body boundary between the Yorkshire North and Tyne and option of removing the weir. Wear water bodies Freshwater bodies x 12 next SMP recommendations: Groundwater bodies x 4 Boundary issues: Boundary between MA04 and MA05 adjusted to align with the water body boundary between the Holy Island & Budle Bay and Northumberland North water bodies. Unless current boundary is most representative of coastal processes in the area. MA19 and MA20, could align with the Northumberland South and Tyne & Wear water bodies ground water bodies may be impacted by SMP Landscape The Northumberland Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was designated in 1958 and covers 39 miles of coast from Berwick to the Coquet estuary. some of the most dramatic coastal scenery in the country with a multitude of special features. sweeping sandy beaches, rolling dunes, high rocky cliffs and isolated islands area steeped in history, covering 7000 years of human activity the host of conservation sites testify to the great variety of wildlife and habitats found within the AONB, and highlight its importance in nature conservation Landscape Character Areas Landscape Character areas Area 1 North Northumberland Coastal Plain Area 14 Tyne and Wear Lowlands Area 13 South East Northumberland Coastal Plain Area 15 Durham Magnesian Limestone Plateau Area 14 Tyne and Wear Lowlands Area 23 Tees Lowlands Area 25 North Yorkshire Moors and Cleveland Hills Natural Profile Areas Area 26 Vale of Pickering see flora and fauna section Area 27 Yorkshire Wolds

Natural Profile Areas see flora and fauna section

Material assets There are many material assets along the SMP coastline including Erosion / flood risk threatening material assets urban centres, ports, roads, railways and power stations. All Erosion / flood risk threatening development zones and material material assets of importance that could be at risk from coastal assets erosion are currently being defended. Redevelopment plans within the coastal zone Population and The majority of urban population is within 30 km of the coastline. Recreation ‐ Erosion / flood risk of recreational assets (e.g. beach, golf The majority of urban form in the study area is located in the Land use The north coastline is characterised by rural areas and smaller course). Erosion / flood risk for coastal access 30km wide strip of the coastal zone. Dominated by residential towns and villages. In the south lies the major conurbation of uses it also includes port development and tourism Newcastle. The major areas of urban form running from north to development. Major conurbations are Newcastle and south are: Berwick‐upon‐Tweed; Seahouses; Amble; Newbiggin‐ Sunderland with the coastline moving southward by‐the‐Sea; Blyth; North Tyneside. The urban areas include major characterised by rural coastline and smaller towns and areas of port and tourism development alongside residential uses. villages. Major areas of urban form North to South are Industrial areas along the coast include shipbuilding, heavy Tyneside; Sunderland Seaham, Hartlepool, Recar, Marske by engineering, chemical engineering and mining. The region has the Sea, Saltburn by the Sea, Whitby, Scarborough, Filey. The been severely affected by changes in the national and region has been severely affected by changes in the national international economy and shifting employment patterns. and international economy and shifting employment patterns, however there are residual areas of coast are associated with Large areas of the coast, particularly in the south of the study shipbuilding; heavy Engineering; chemical engineering. area, contain pockets of severe social deprivation and qualify for Tourism development occurs at intervals from the River tyne various levels of European Assisted Area Status. to Flamborough Head, but is specifically concentrated in the south, where the coast is generally more rural in character.

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

Future land use /planning targets:

Historic The heritage features along the Northumberland coast portray a Erosion / flood risk threatening heritage asset From the south of the River Tyne to Flamborough Head, the Environment long, and often bloody, legacy. This is especially true for the north strong industrial heritage of this area of the coastline, is as a result of the ongoing border disputes between England and coupled with the rural legacy of the more southern areas Scotland, which has resulted in the construction of numerous providing a diverse range of terrestrial heritage. It is home to castles. The history of the area dates back to the Neolithic times, some of the country’s most outstanding national monuments whilst many of the scheduled monuments have a religious theme (such as Whitby Abbey) and a wealth of archaeological due to the areas close association with early Christianity in features. England. The history to the south is illustrated by its industrial heritage, which is mainly linked to fishing and coal mining.

Designations located within 1 km of the Northumberland Designations located within 1 km of the coastline from the coastline: River Tyne to Flamborough head :

35 Scheduled Monuments 36 Scheduled Monuments 43 Registered Battlefields 1 Protected wreck (Seaton Carew) 3 Registered Parks and Gardens Heritage Coast:Durham, North Yorkshire and Cleveland, and The North Northumberland Heritage Coast Flamborough Head There are no marine heritage features

Several features of heritage interest have been identified as being at high risk from coastal erosion (reported in the North East Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment: Phase 1 and Phase 2 (2008, 2010)

Air quality and The north‐east coast is believed to be still responding to changes during the last 10,000 years when sea levels rose rapidly, flooding the North Sea Basin, but there is now concern over human‐induced climate factors acceleration in sea level rise due to climate change. Relative sea level change depends upon changes in global sea level (eustatic change) and in land‐level (isostatic change). Isotstatic change is the change in land level as the crust slowly readjusts to unloading of the weight of the ice since the last Ice Age. Therefore, areas which were covered by ice, i.e. northern England and Scotland, have been experiencing a rise in land levels over the last few thousand years, whereas the southern areas of England has been subsiding. Tees Bay is approximately at the fulcrum of the see‐saw and therefore remains relatively stable

7-10 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Table C3. Issues and Objectives by Coastal Protection Authority (taken from the Chapter 7 of each SMP2 Main Document)

SMP2 overview of approach and main issues going forward within each Council Area (a full list of objectives for each zone is presented in Appendix E of the Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2 and River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2)

Northumberland County Council and North Tyneside Council PDZ 1: Scottish Border to Budle Point, including Holy Island. Maintain the naturalness of the undefended areas of coast. Protect areas of high economic and socio‐economic value from sea flooding and coastal erosion. Maintain and enhance ecological interest and amenity benefits. Adapt planned and existing land uses to accommodate ongoing coastal change, including erosion and sea level rise. Relocate sections of car parks and caravan parks where necessary.

PDZ 2: Bamburgh to Seaton Point Allow natural evolution over the majority of the frontage to maintain and enhance its landscape, tourism and environmental value. To protect major commercial or residential areas such as Seahouses Harbour, Beadnell Village and Beadnell Harbour. Local defences to protect the overall integrity of coastal communities where sustainable to do so, although not necessarily using linear defence structures. Realignment of sections of highway Maintenance of defence to coastal communities, such as at Boulmer.

PDZ 3: Seaton Point to Beacon Hill Allow natural evolution over the majority of the frontage to maintain and enhance its landscape, tourism and environmental value. To protect commercial centres and regeneration opportunities. To enhance the natural environment through managed realignment of flood defences within the River Aln and River Coquet estuaries. Adapt planned and existing land uses to accommodate ongoing coastal change, including erosion and sea level rise. Re‐location of foreshore access points. Re‐location of sections of caravan parks, golf courses and car parks where necessary. Maintenance of defences around Warkworth Harbour. Erosion risk at Amble Cemetery.

PDZ:4 Beacon Hill to Beacon Point Manage evolution over the majority of the frontage to maintain and enhance its landscape, tourism and environmental value. To protect industrial areas and regeneration opportunities. Managing the response of dunes under rising sea levels and storm attack. Managing the erosion of colliery spoil beaches and coastal slopes. Realignment of sections of highway, especially near Snab Point. Realignment of sections of car park, especially in northern Druridge Bay and near Snab Point. Delivering a balanced and affordable approach to sustainable long term management at Low Hauxley.

PDZ: 5 Newbiggin Moor to Seaton Sluice Maintain defence to urban and industrial areas such as Newbiggin‐by‐the‐Sea and Blyth Harbour. Manage evolution over undefended frontages to maintain and enhance landscape, tourism and environmental value. Re‐location of sections of caravan parks and golf courses where necessary. Management of the risk of sea flooding to the town of Blyth and dune erosion along Blyth South Beach.

PDZ: 6 Seaton Sluice to River Tyne (North Shields Fish Quay) Maintain protection to property and infrastructure against erosion and sea flooding. Allow the natural development of undefended sections of frontage. Maintaining largely Victorian era defences along North Tyneside. Managing the transition between defended and undefended sections of coast.

South Tyneside Council Northern section of coast (developed area) Ensuring good integrated management of the frontage in relation to current activities and regeneration plans.

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

The need to ensure enhancement of the natural ecological features.

Southern section of coast (more natural frontage) the main issues are the management of potential pollution issues and the management of the retreating coastline. planned relocation of car parks and possibly the coastal road associated with the retreating coastline

Sunderland City Council Maintenance and major refurbishment of the linear defences developments of defence actions need to be integrated with the proposed regeneration plan. Southern extent major refurbishment work and reconstruction is to be undertaken on‐ going investigation into the Halliwell Banks quarry. Potential contamination. Long term steepening of nearshore area. Stability of cliffs Risk at the Bents Erosion of area south of Sunderland and potential impact on transport infrastructure. Potential loss of beaches Defence condition and vulnerability to loss of material at the toe.

County Durham Council Potential contamination from erosion of the cliff line to the south of the harbour Regeneration of the area Critical to management of the coast is the change occurring on the shore as mining waste continues to erode Likely behaviour of the beaches to change over the next 20 years.

Hartlepool Borough Council Recent detailed management to the north of Hartlepool and the Headland through to the marina. Specific schemes identified at the Headland, in front of the Town walls and the marina defences. Detailed proposals are being developed for North Sands. Concern over condition of defences in front of Seaton Carew. Management and maintenance required to development of the Seaton Carew sea front. Management plan required for Seaton Dunes. Managed realignment requires taking forward in an appropriate manner. Action plan and monitoring requirements at three general areas: North Hartlepool, Hartlepool Bay and Seaton Carew.

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Potential flood risks associated with the policies for natural realignment of the dunes at Coatham and within the Tees Uncertainty associated with cliff erosion rates, coupled to foreshore evolution for Marske to Saltburn frontages Uncertainties will determine the timing for intervention at Marske and are critical to the management at Saltburn. Develop a strategy for Saltburn to include longer term development management at Marske Recently concluded strategy at Skinningrove sets out a plan for refurbishment of defences Rates of erosion cliff remains uncertain and requires long term monitoring (area of coast to the east). Most critical at Cowbar and links to the management of Staithes.

Scarborough Borough Council Common to each area is the need to better understand and monitor erosion and instability of the coastal cliffs. On‐going concern over condition of defences at Staithes, Runswick Bay and Robin Hood’s Bay At Whitby the condition of the piers, the management of beach levels and the future management at Sandsend all require prompt action. Strategies have been developed over the Scarborough frontages Further south the principle issues relate to cliff instability and erosion rates, particularly at Cayton Bay, Filey and the smaller communities in Filey Bay. Specific concerns at Osgodby Point and Flat Cliffs where the policy is for managed realignment. Need for a co‐ordinated plan to address loss of properties General erosion of the cliff line which may have long term implications for land management.

7-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

InSection addition to the C1mapping - exercisesHabitat identified Studies above two habitat studies have been undertaken specifically to address and consider further the outcomes of implementing the preferred policies of the Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2. The first of these studies published in October 2010 is the Northumberland and North Tyneside Rocky Foreshore ‘Coastal Squeeze’ Study (Royal Haskoning, 2010). The aim of which was to provide a quantitative assessment of the gains and losses of inter‐tidal rocky reef and foreshore habitat associated with implementation of the preferred policies of the second generation Shoreline Management Plan (or ‘SMP2’). The final study report stated that in terms of baseline conditions, the present‐day extent of rocky foreshore calculated within each of the PDZs (within the Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP area) is presented below. In total there is some 657.1ha of rocky foreshore within the SMP2 area, with approximately two‐thirds located within PDZ2 (40%) and PDZ1 (26%). The conclusions of the study can be summarised as follows:  With sea level rise, it has been calculated that all PDZs will lose rocky foreshore area due to submergence under rising sea levels between the baseline and the three future epochs. Considering the SMP2 area as a whole, the loss due to submergence is 13.2ha by 2025, 48.0ha by 2055 and 117.2ha by 2105.  Based upon the SMP2 erosion lines, it has been calculated that all PDZs will gain rocky foreshore area due to emergence as cliffs and dune erode landwards between the baseline and the three future epochs. Considering the SMP2 area as a whole, the gain due to erosion is 8.8ha by 2025, 25.2ha by 2055 and 81.3ha by 2105.  Considering the SMP2 area as a whole, there will be a net loss of rocky foreshore of 4.5ha by 2025. This represents 0.7% of the baseline area. By 2055, the loss is projected to have increased to 22.8 ha, representing 3.5% of the baseline, and by 2105 some 35.9ha, or 5.5% of the baseline, will have been lost.  The gains in habitat will occur where policies of ‘No Active Intervention’ or ‘Management Realignment’ are applicable. Where ‘Hold the Line’ is the preferred option, no new rocky foreshore will emerge as the cliffs or dunes will be stabilised in position, generally by coastal defence structures. The study also considered whether there are any other areas of opportunities for rocky foreshore creation, beyond that provided by ‘NAI’ or ‘MR’ policies. This only arises if there is an existing ‘Hold the Line’ policy which could be overturned on the basis of providing compensatory habitat for the losses observed elsewhere. The study considered the Policy Units where HTL line is the preferred policy and concluded that no further opportunities for rocky foreshore creation beyond those delivered by NAI or MR policies from the SMP2 were identifiable. The second study is the Northumberland County Council Cell 1 Intertidal Habitats Study (Martin Wright Associates, 2014). The study considers the future evolution of intertidal4 Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats5 along the Cell 1 coastal frontage based upon two scenarios; the first assesses the potential habitat change, both losses and gains, associated with rising sea levels (i.e. current situation); and, the second scenario assesses the impact of coastal defence policies identified in the current Shoreline Management Plans (SMPS). The study divided the Cell 1 coastline into 19 areas, principally based upon geology. The most dominant BAP habitat type along the coastline was found to be sand and mudflats, followed in scale by coastal sand dunes and maritime cliffs and slopes. No shingle and gravel beaches were

4 Intertidal habitats are those that fall between limits of the tidal rise and fall.

5 Biodiversity Action Plan habitats are those identified as being the most threatened and require conservation action. Although initially identified under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, the UK Post‐2010 Biodiversity Framework retains these as a measure of biodiversity conservation requirements.

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS identified in any of the 19 Cell 1 sub‐units. Many of the supra‐tidal6 features (with the exception of Maritime cliffs and slopes) are to be found in the northern section of Cell 1. This reflects the generally less rugged nature of the coast and flatter hinterland. Maritime cliffs and slopes occur in the mid to southern sections of Cell 1, which is reflected in the shaping of the coastline in this section. The Lindisfarne area contains the largest and most diverse range of BAP habitat. It contains the vast majority of sand and mudflat BAP habitat and all of the coastal and floodplain grazing marsh habitat which has been identified along Cell 1. Druridge Bay and Alnmouth are also important areas for the rarer habitat, namely saltmarsh, saline lagoons and reedbed. The study identified the following key points:  The habitat change under the baseline scenario identifies a loss of 4ha of saltmarsh habitat over the study period, which, whilst small in cumulative extent, comprises over a tenth of the available resource within the Cell 1 study area. The loss of habitat is principally likely to occur in the Lindisfarne and Alnmouth subunits.  Over the study period, under the baseline scenario, the extent of sand and mudflat habitat increases with a cumulative change of 215ha over the study period, although the gain is relatively small in comparison to the extent in the study area, despite a minor loss in the first epoch (i.e. over the first 20 years). The gain of habitat principally is likely to occur in the Lindisfarne and Durham Coast sub‐units with additional gains identified in the Seahouses, Alnmouth, Druridge Bay, Whitley Bay, Hartlepool, Staithes, Whitby and Scarborough sub‐ units.  Over the study period under Scenario 2 (i.e. implementation if SMP2 policy), the saltmarsh habitat sees gains in habitat extent in each epoch (although very small in the second epoch (i.e. 20 to 50 years)), with a gain of approximately 6ha cumulatively up to 2113. The majority of the habitat gain is achieved in the Alnmouth sub‐unit, with additional gains in the Lindisfarne area.  The habitat changes for intertidal sand and mudflat is similar to that identified under the baseline scenario, with a cumulative gain of 95ha over the study period despite a loss in the first epoch. The Lindisfarne area comprises the main area of habitat change with changes also identified in the Alnmouth, Druridge Bay, Seahouses, Whitley Bay, Durham Coast, Staithes and Scarborough sub‐units.  Although the extent of sand and mudflat habitat increases over the study period under Scenario 2, the implementation of coastal defence policies will inhibit the natural development of the intertidal habitat identified in Scenario 1. As a result, a loss in each epoch with a cumulative loss of 120ha up to 2113 is attributable to the policies in the Shoreline Management Plans.  With regards to saltmarsh habitat, the habitat gains identified in Scenario 2 are greater due to the losses identified in Scenario 1. Whilst there is a comparative loss in the third epoch, a gain of 10ha is attributable to the Shoreline Management Plans over the study period. The study also considered, at a high‐level, habitat creation opportunities and identified a total of 18 prospective and potential sites, comprising 16 intertidal areas (saltmarsh and sand and mudflats) and 2 supra‐tidal (sand dunes) with a maximum area of 1,300ha. The compensatory areas identified in Cell 1 are located in areas where SMP2 policies are "Managed Realignment" or "No Active Intervention", where landward regression in response to sea level rise will occur naturally as land is of relatively low value – this occurs generally in floodplains and/or on agricultural land. At these locations, sand and mudflats and saltmarsh will develop naturally. Most of the habitat creation opportunities are located in areas where habitat loss is the greatest however this is not always possible, for example around

6 Supra‐tidal habitats are those that fall above the limit of the tidal influence.

7-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Scarborough. The report concluded that it is anticipated that sufficient opportunities exist within the Cell 1 study area for the development of compensatory inter‐tidal habitat to offset the losses identified.

Appendix D: Action Plan Tables

Appendix D‐ SMP2 Action Plan Tables (by Category).

Table D1. Asset Management and Maintenance Actions

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given) Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2 Actions All MAs Ensure that maintenance of existing defences is regularly Northumberland County undertaken Council North Tyneside Council MA01 North of Berwick Berwick Breakwater ‐ urgent repairs. 2009 Berwick BC MA01 North of Berwick Berwick Breakwater – refurbishment. 2012 Berwick BC MA01 North of Berwick Maintenance of other defence assets. Ongoing Berwick BC MA02 Tweed Estuary Modify defences around Sandstell Point subject to study and 2015 Berwick BC development plans. MA02 Tweed Estuary Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended Ongoing Berwick BC MA03 Scremerston Cliffs Relocate car parks as necessary to avoid structural intervention. 2030 ‐2055 Nature Reserve MA03 Scremerston Cliffs No new coast protection schemes proposed, but maintenance of Ongoing Berwick BC existing defence assets recommended. MA04 Holy Island Hinterland Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Berwick BC MA05 Holy Island North and East No new coast protection schemes proposed, but maintenance of Ongoing Berwick BC existing defence assets recommended. MA06 Budle Bay to Seahouses Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended Ongoing Berwick BC MA07 Seahouses to Beadnell No new coast protection schemes proposed, but maintenance of Ongoing Berwick BC existing defence assets recommended. MA09 Embleton Bay Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Alnwick DC MA10 Castle Rock to Boulmer No new coast protection schemes proposed, but maintenance of Ongoing Alnwick DC existing defence assets recommended. MA11 Boulmer to Seaton Point Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Alnwick DC MA12 Foxton Bay Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Alnwick DC MA13 Alnmouth Bay Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Alnwick DC MA14 Birling Links Locally encourage build up of sediment adjacent to North 2055 Alnwick DC Breakwater to prevent breaching t root. MA14 Birling Links Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Alnwick DC MA15 Amble Improvement works to North Breakwater. 2025 Alnwick DC MA15 Amble Improvement works to seawalls in Little Shore Wave Basin. 2011 Alnwick DC MA15 Amble Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Alnwick DC MA16 South Amble Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Alnwick DC MA17 Beacon Hill to Creswell Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Alnwick DC/Castle Morpeth

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given) DC MA18 Snab Point Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Castle Morpeth BC MA19 Lynemouth Bay No coast protection schemes presently proposed, but dependent Ongoing Castle Morpeth BC / on longer‐term land use plan. Maintenance of existing defence Wansbeck DC/Alcan assets recommended. MA20 Newbiggin Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended. Ongoing Wansbeck DC MA21 Spital Point to Blyth East Pier Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended Ongoing Wansbeck DC MA22 Blyth Harbour No coast protection schemes proposed against erosion. Ongoing Ongoing Port of Blyth/Environment investigations may reveal need for flood defence improvements Agency within the harbour against tidal and/or river flooding to the town. MA23 Blyth West Pier to Seaton Sluice Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended Ongoing Blyth Valley DC MA24 Seaton Sluice to Curry’s Point Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended Ongoing North Tyneside MA25 Curry’s Point to Brown’s Point Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended Ongoing North Tyneside MA26 Brown’s Point to Tynemouth Port of Tyne – maintenance of harbour structures Ongoing Port of Tyne North Pier MA26 Brown’s Point to Tynemouth Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended Ongoing North Tyneside North Pier MA27 Tynemouth North Pier to Fish Maintenance of existing defence assets recommended Ongoing North Tyneside Quay River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 Actions MA06 Souter Point to Sunderland Refurbishment of defences to North Sunderland 2012 Sunderland City Council Harbour MA07 Sunderland Harbour Continued refurbishment of harbour piers. 2012 Sunderland City Council In addition to their function to port activities, the piers provide an important coast protection function. MA10 Chourdon Point to Blackhall Local management (in line with objectives of the Durham Coastal ongoing Durham Heritage Coast Rocks Strategy ‐ i.e. within the policy of NAI there is scope for local management of access and management of natural heritage in that minor works adapting use and interest of the shoreline will not impact on the overall coastal processes) MA25 Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point Robin Hoods Bay ‐ Preventative maintenance as recommended 2010 Scarborough BC (Robin Hoods Bay) by strategy

7-2 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Table D2. Development Planning and Adaptation Actions

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2 Actions All MAs Links with Land Use Planning Northumberland County Council North Tyneside Council All MAs ‘Lite‐touch’ review of emerging information Northumberland County Council North Tyneside Council All MAs Review of SMP2 2018 Northumberland County Council North Tyneside Council All MAs Use launch of SMP2 to raise awareness of flood and erosion risk 2009 Northumberland County Council and its management North Tyneside Council All MAs Feed SMP2 information into future reviews of Contingency Plans Northumberland County Council North Tyneside Council All MAs Ensure that proposed Strategies, studies and investigations for Northumberland County Council each Management Area are included as appropriate within North Tyneside Council Medium Term Planning (MTP) All MAs Ensure that proposed schemes for each Management Area are Northumberland County Council included as appropriate within Medium Term Planning (MTP) North Tyneside Council All MAs Ensure that business cases and funding applications for proposed Northumberland County Council schemes for each Management Area are undertaken in line with North Tyneside Council sanctioned MTPs. All MAs Active participation in the development of the Environment Northumberland County Council Agency’s Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management North East North Tyneside Council Regional Habitat Creation Plan. (The SMP2 has identified that there will be net loss of rocky foreshore habitat as a result of the policies of the SMP2) All MAs Escalate the issue of loss of rocky foreshore habitat to UK Northumberland County Council government via Natural England and Environment Agency North Tyneside Council All MAs Communicate SMP outputs to those affected by policy changes 2009 Northumberland County Council North Tyneside Council All MAs NI189 reporting on implementation of the SMP2 Action Plan. Northumberland County Council North Tyneside Council MA01 North of Berwick Improve access to areas of interest and to the foreshore. 2050 Berwick BC

MA01 North of Berwick Adapt land use to accommodate coastal change. 2050 Golf Club & Holiday Park MA02 Tweed Estuary Recognise sea level rise in development plans for the area. Ongoing Developers / Master Planners /

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Berwick BC Planners MA03 Scremerston Cliffs Possible slope stabilisation works to protect property and railway 2055 National Rail line. MA04 Holy Island Hinterland Discussions with landowners as part of Northumberland 4shores Ongoing Environment Agency Project involving MR MA04 Holy Island Hinterland New defence to the road at Waren Mill 2055 Environment Agency MA04 Holy Island Hinterland Possible need for causeway works at Shell Road on Holy Island. 2025 Berwick BC MA06 Budle Bay to Seahouses Planning for longer‐term realignment of the road south of 2025 Berwick BC Planners Bamburgh Moor. Incorporate within Development Plans. MA06 Budle Bay to Seahouses Local management to encourage dune development at Monk’s 2055 Berwick BC House. MA06 Budle Bay to Seahouses Planning to use alternative road (Broad Road) as main 2075 Berwick BC Planners thoroughfare at Seahouses in the longer‐term. Incorporate within Development Plans. MA06 Budle Bay to Seahouses Realign road south of Bamburgh Moor. 2090 County Council Highways MA06 Budle Bay to Seahouses Use Broad Road as main thoroughfare at Seahouses in the 2090 County Council Highways longer‐term. MA07 Seahouses to Beadnell Discussion with landowners regarding potential increase in flood 2010 Environment Agency plain of Annstead Burn for nature conservation purposes. MA08 Beadnell and Beadnell Bay Development control seaward of the harbour road. Ongoing Berwick BC Planners MA08 Beadnell and Beadnell Bay Discussion with landowners regarding potential increase in flood 2009 Environment Agency plain of Brunton Burn for nature conservation purposes. MA08 Beadnell and Beadnell Bay Beadnell North Sea Wall Improvements Project Appraisal Report 2010 Berwick BC MA08 Beadnell and Beadnell Bay Development control on northern section of Beadnell Bay to Ongoing Berwick BC Planners maintain ‘buffer zone’. MA09 Embleton Bay Minor works to enhance general protection at Low Newton in 2055 Alnwick DC light of sea level rise. MA10 Castle Rock to Boulmer Plan for longer‐term realignment of the road north of Howick. 2055 County Council Highways Incorporate within Development Plans. MA10 Castle Rock to Boulmer Realignment of the road north of Howick. 2090 County Council Highways MA12 Foxton Bay Planning now to set back the access steps in Foxton Bay. 2030 Alnwick DC MA12 Foxton Bay Set back the access steps. 2030 Alnwick DC MA13 Alnmouth Bay Adapt the present land use to allow a more natural system Ongoing Alnwick DC Planners approach to management. MA13 Alnmouth Bay Formal review of Alnmouth Strategy 2010 Alnwick DC

7-4 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

MA13 Alnmouth Bay Alnmouth Bay adaptation 2011 onwards Alnwick DC MA13 Alnmouth Bay Possible reinforcement of management at the mouth of the 2055 Alnwick DC River Aln to HTL. MA14 Birling Links Plan for longer‐term adaptation of Birling Carrs Caravan Park. 2105 Caravan Park MA16 South Amble Future works at South Amble 2025 Alnwick DC MA17 Beacon Hill to Creswell Develop a progressive transitional management approach, with Ongoing Alnwick DC ongoing discussion regarding the possible need for further management to the area behind Bondi Carrs. MA17 Beacon Hill to Creswell Consideration of longer‐term options for drainage of Ladyburn 2011 Castle Morpeth BC Lake within a Druridge Bay Adaptation Strategy. Northumberland County Council MA17 Beacon Hill to Creswell Discussion with landowners about potential habitat 2010 Environment Agency enhancements associated with opening low lying land to flooding. MA17 Beacon Hill to Creswell Possible need for further management to the area behind Bondi 2009‐2015 Alnwick DC Carrs. MA18 Snab Point Longer‐term realignment of the road and Caravan Park. 2075 County Council Highways / Caravan Park MA19 Lynemouth Bay Develop longer‐term land use plan for the area. 2035 Castle Morpeth BC / Wansbeck DC MA20 Newbiggin Plan for longer‐term realignment of sections of the Newbiggin Ongoing Golf Club / Caravan Park golf course and Caravan Park. MA20 Newbiggin Newbiggin Bay Beach Management 2009 onwards Wansbeck DC MA21 Spital Point to Blyth East Pier Plan for longer‐term realignment of sections of the Sandy Bay 2055 Caravan Park Caravan Park. MA21 Spital Point to Blyth East Pier Inform land use plans to set development back from the eroding Ongoing Wansbeck DC Planners shore by a suitable buffer zone. MA21 Spital Point to Blyth East Pier Selective local works on a retreated alignment to safeguard 2055 Wansbeck DC properties and assets (e.g. Cambois House and Cottages) and help with wider‐scale coastal reconfiguration. MA23 Blyth West Pier to Seaton Sluice Local realignment at the southern end of the existing Blyth 2075 Blyth Valley DC promenade in the longer‐term. MA24 Seaton Sluice to Curry’s Point Local intervention to maintain/relocate access steps to Hartley 2055 North Tyneside Cove. MA26 Brown’s Point to Tynemouth Develop solution to longer‐term management of Tynemouth 2055 North Tyneside North Pier Longsands that avoids new lengths of linear defence.

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

MA26 Brown’s Point to Tynemouth Longer‐term MR of shoreline in Tynemouth Longsands through 2055 North Tyneside North Pier local strategically placed structures to pull the coast forward and build up protective beaches. River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 Actions MA01 River Tyne to South Pier Revise strategy for Littlehaven, with intention to realign defence. 2007 South Tyneside Council (STC) Deteriorating defence and overtopping. Ensure integration with redevelopment. Maintain navigation and water sports MA02 Herd Sand Establish plan for dune management including long term plan for 2007 South Tyneside Council (STC) recreation area. Maintain integrity of dunes. Long term roll back. Integration of recreational use.

MA02 Herd Sand Outline strategy for Herd Sands developed in conjunction with 2012 South Tyneside Council (STC) land use plan. Ensure integration with redevelopment. Maintain function of dunes and use of beach and water sports. Sustainable defence line. MA03 Trow Trow: design development. Establish specific design criteria and ongoing South Tyneside Council (STC) undertake design. Develop an appropriate immediate action to address potential contamination. Development of long term realignment.

MA04 Frenchmans Bay to Lizard Point Planning Strategy. Development of realignment strategy for 2012 South Tyneside Council (STC) road, car parking and access. Including examination of alternative route for road. (Discussion with highway authority. Establish necessary policy within land use plans to allow relocation. Confirm policy approach prior to review of SMP3). MA05 Lizard Point to Souter Point Assess potential impacts and confirm SMP policy. 2010 South Tyneside Council (STC) MA05 Lizard Point to Souter Point Retired defence at Harbour quarry (subject to investigations and 2025 South Tyneside Council (STC) plan) MA06 Souter Point to Sunderland Review strategy priorities against outcome measures 2008 Sunderland City Council Harbour MA06 Souter Point to Sunderland Scheme development. Review strategy and develop appraisal for 2010 Sunderland City Council/ Harbour maintenance and refurbishment plan. Significant economic loss Co‐ordinated with South due to erosion and flooding. Aim to extend life of existing Tyneside Council defences. A key driver for future works will be to maintain important amenity of area. The condition of defences is becoming critical.

7-6 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

MA07 Sunderland Harbour Review strategy for port area Sunderland City Council MA07 Sunderland Harbour Review strategy priorities against outcome measures 2008 Sunderland City Council MA07 Sunderland Harbour Review strategy. High economic risk. Possible biodiversity 2017 Sunderland City Council opportunities. Maintaining SSSI. Port operation and watersports. MA08 Sunderland Harbour to Review strategy priorities against outcome measures 2008 Sunderland City Council Pincushion Point MA08 Sunderland Harbour to Scheme development for Harbour East Bay. Review and develop 2008 Sunderland City Council Pincushion Point defence requirements to Port regeneration area. High economic risk. Examine opportunity for realignment to provide an integrated approach with regeneration. Defences in poor condition. MA08 Sunderland Harbour to Review strategy along Hendon/ Ryhope frontage. High economic 2012 Sunderland City Council Pincushion Point risk. Part of regeneration plan. MA09 Pincushion Point to Chourdon Review overall coastal strategy 2014 Easington DC Point MA11 Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Schemes for North Hartlepool to be identified by strategies Hartlepool BC Breakwater MA11 Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Management strategy for Crimdon Valley. Potential for 2009 Co‐ordinated by Hartlepool BC/ Breakwater biodiversity. Resolve local land use together with access and Easington DC/ Durham Heritage environmental enhancement. Coast MA11 Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Development strategy for area of North Sands. Develop an 2007 Co‐ordinated by Hartlepool BC Breakwater integrated approach to defence of the cemetery frontage. Identify potential erosion risk contribution. Potential development in risk area. Opportunity for enhancement of designated area and local biodiversity. Ensure integration with redevelopment. Maintain heritage and amenity value MA12 Hartlepool Bay Middleton Beach. Advise on defence. Ensure integration with 2009 Co‐ordinated by Hartlepool BC redevelopment to provide sustainable defence MA12 Hartlepool Bay Marina. Detailed project appraisal report. Develop 2010 Private/ Co‐ordinated by recommendations of strategy. High economic risk. Review Hartlepool BC sustainable development. Benefits associated with port. Possible biodiversity improvement. Interaction with Middleton development MA12 Hartlepool Bay Town walls. Detailed scheme appraisal report. Economic value 2008 Private/ Co‐ordinated by and protection of property. Potential opportunity for Hartlepool BC biodiversity. Important Heritage issues. Maintain navigation.

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

MA12 Hartlepool Bay Heugh Breakwater. Review strategy to confirm policy for 2012 Private/ Co‐ordinated by management. Impact on designated area. Use of frontage and Hartlepool BC potential additional defence requirement. Impact on navigation MA13 Tees Bay Strategy for Seaton Carew, review of condition and develop 2009 Hartlepool BC management strategy. High economic value. Poor condition of defences. Potential for more sustainable defence. Beach use. Amenity value. Long term redevelopment MA13 Tees Bay Management plan for Seaton Dunes. Co‐ordinate land use and 2010 Co‐ordinated by Hartlepool BC dune management. High opportunity for biodiversity linked to (Environment Agency) designated areas. Amenity use of area. Associated flood risk MA13 Tees Bay Review flood risk to rear of Coatham dunes. Examine need for 2010 Environment Agency. / Redcar retired flood defence. Potential economic risk and risk to and Cleveland BC. property. Advice against unsustainable development. Long term evolution of dunes with biodiversity opportunities. Transition between Coatham and Coatham dunes. MA13 Tees Bay Management review. Review of defence measures associated 2007 Co‐ordinated by Redcar and with development at Coatham. Integration of sustainable Cleveland BC defences. MA13 Tees Bay Review flood defence strategy to Teesmouth. High economic 2012 Environment Agency. (Hartlepool value. Advice against unsustainable development. Ensure BC/ Redcar and Cleveland BC.) integration with port development. Opportunity for biodiversity linked to designated areas. Maintain navigation and water sports MA14 Coaltham and Redcar Revised strategy and appraisal. Extend strategy to Redcar east On going Environment Agency/ Redcar and and develop detailed schemes. High economic risk. High risk to Cleveland BC properties. Potential development issues. Integration with designated sites. Amenity use of Redcar and beach. Long term management of East Redcar MA15 Mill Howle to Saltburn Develop strategy for Marske and Saltburn. High economic loss. 2009 Redcar and Cleveland BC Risk to properties. Potential for biodiversity enhancement. Amenity use of area. Maintain water sports and access MA19 Cowbar and Staithes Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing Scarborough BC MA19 Cowbar and Staithes Review Staithes strategy. Review flood risk and set out long term 2009 Scarborough BC/ Redcar and management of harbour and piers. Economic loss. Risk to Cleveland BC properties. Heritage and community support in line with NYMNP objectives. Harbour use. Management of Cowbar lane MA19 Cowbar and Staithes Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC

7-8 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

MA20 Staithes to Cobble Dump Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA20 Staithes to Cobble Dump Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA21 Cobble Dump to Sandsend Ness Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA21 Cobble Dump to Sandsend Ness Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies SBC MA22 Sandsend Ness to Upgang Beck Sandsend ‐ Strategy Review. Highway investigation and review 2009 Scarborough BC/ NYCC possible realignment of coastal strategic route. Potential for more sustainable defence. Longer term economic damage and risk to properties. Impacts on environmental value. Information to feed back to coastal strategy Heritage and community support in line with NYMNP objectives MA22 Sandsend Ness to Upgang Beck Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA22 Sandsend Ness to Upgang Beck Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA23 Upgang Beck to Whitby Abbey Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA23 Upgang Beck to Whitby Abbey Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA23 Upgang Beck to Whitby Abbey Whitby ‐ Appraisal of Whitby Harbour Piers, examining condition Ongoing Scarborough BC of Piers and development of management approach. High pending economic loss and risk to property. Links to management of funding. foreshore. Maintain navigation and water sports MA23 Upgang Beck to Whitby Abbey Strategy study examining flood risk within Whitby harbour. High 2008 Environment Agency/ economic loss and risk to property. Important issues in relation Scarborough BC to sustaining recreational and commercial centre of Whitby. MA24 Whitby to Saltwick Nab Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA24 Whitby to Saltwick Nab Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA24 Whitby to Saltwick Nab Negotiate retreat of the Cleveland Way 2025 NYMNPA/ Heritage Coast MA25 Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC (Robin Hoods Bay) MA25 Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC (Robin Hoods Bay) MA25 Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point Robin Hoods Bay ‐ Develop Strategy for Robin Hood’s Bay, 2010/2012 Scarborough BC (Robin Hoods Bay) further consideration of cliff stability. High economic damage and risk to properties. Implications for development in risk area. Heritage and community support in line with NYMNP objectives MA26 Hundale Point to Scalby Ness Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing Scarborough BC MA26 Hundale Point to Scalby Ness Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA27 Scalby Ness to Castle Cliff Scarborough ‐ Review Holbeck to Scalby Mills Strategy. High Scarborough BC economic value and risk to properties. Ensure integration with

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

redevelopment. Incorporate strategy for Scalby Ness. Safety and use of promenade. MA27 Scalby Ness to Castle Cliff Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA27 Scalby Ness to Castle Cliff Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Scarborough ‐ Review Holbeck to Scalby Mills Strategy, High on‐going Scarborough BC economic value and risk to properties. Integration with sea front and amenity. Maintain navigation and leisure issues MA29 White Nab to Cayton Bay Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA29 White Nab to Cayton Bay Cayton Bay: Realignment strategy, develop managed 2012 Scarborough BC realignment and access strategy plan. Maintaining use of Cayton Bay. Advice on sustainable development. MA29 White Nab to Cayton Bay Cayton Bay: Management plan, to review implications of 2008 Scarborough BC/ NYCC/ managed realignment. Risk to properties. Highway management. National Trust Important environmental issues. Access and amenity MA29 White Nab to Cayton Bay Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA30 Cayton Bay to Filey Brigg Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA30 Cayton Bay to Filey Brigg Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA31 Filey Brigg to Muston Sands Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA31 Filey Brigg to Muston Sands Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC MA31 Filey Brigg to Muston Sands Filey ‐ Scheme appraisal to develop strategy recommendations 2008 Scarborough BC for outflanking defence. High economic value and risk to properties. Important amenity of Filey Bay MA32 Muston Sands to Speeton Cliffs Filey Bay Management Plan for Flat Cliffs, to support 2007 Residents and private sector management for realignment. Properties at risk. Potential Supported by Scarborough BC unsustainable development. Access road. Potential contamination. Impacts on biodiversity. MA32 Muston Sands to Speeton Cliffs Review strategy priorities against outcome measures. 2008 Scarborough BC MA32 Muston Sands to Speeton Cliffs Review of all SBC Coastal Strategies ongoing SBC

7-10 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

Table D3. Monitoring Actions

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2 Actions All MAs Establish links between the SMP2 coastal monitoring (Section 7) Northumberland County Council and the North East Tidal Flood Forecasting System North Tyneside Council All MAs Continue beach surveys to understand rates and mechanisms of Surveys in Northumberland County Council coastal change spring and North Tyneside Council autumn of each year All MAs Continue structural condition inspections to understand rates Walk‐over Northumberland County Council and mechanisms of deterioration surveys once North Tyneside Council every 2 years (from summer 2010) All MAs Continued data collection for SMP3: Full measures beach profile September/Oct Northumberland County Council surveys ober each year North Tyneside Council All MAs Continued data collection for SMP3: Partial measures beach March/April Northumberland County Council profile surveys each year North Tyneside Council MA4 Holy Island Hinterland Continued data collection for SMP3: Topographic surveys of Holy September/Oct Northumberland County Council Island causeway ober each year MA13 Alnmouth Bay Continued data collection for SMP3: Topographic surveys of September/Oct Northumberland County Council Alnmouth Beach ober and March/April each year; MA20 Newbiggin Continued data collection for SMP3: Cliff top surveys at September/Oct Northumberland County Council Newbiggin Bay Caravan Park ober and North Tyneside Council March/April each year; MA21 Spital Point to Blyth East Pier Continued data collection for SMP3: Cliff top surveys at Sandy September/Oct Northumberland County Council Bay Caravan Park ober and North Tyneside Council March/April each year; All MAs Continued data collection for SMP3: Walk‐over inspections of the every 2 years Northumberland County Council coastal defences and natural features (dunes, slopes, cliffs). North Tyneside Council Information updated into the MS Access database and fed across to the Environment Agency for inclusion in its own National

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Flood and Coastal Defence Database A new Cell 1 Regional Monitoring Programme: One wave Northumberland County Council recording buoy off the Northumberland coast North Tyneside Council All MAs A new Cell 1 Regional Monitoring Programme: Aerial once every 6 Northumberland County Council photography of the coastline at low water years North Tyneside Council All MAs A new Cell 1 Regional Monitoring Programme: Development of a not given Northumberland County Council cell‐wide website for data storage North Tyneside Council MA01 North of Berwick Coastal monitoring. Ongoing Berwick BC MA02 Tweed Estuary Coastal monitoring. Ongoing Berwick BC MA03 Scremerston Cliffs Coastal monitoring Ongoing Berwick BC MA04 Holy Island Hinterland Coastal monitoring. Ongoing Berwick BC MA05 Holy Island North and East Coastal monitoring. Ongoing Berwick BC MA06 Budle Bay to Seahouses Coastal monitoring. Ongoing Berwick BC MA21 Spital Point to Blyth East Pier Cambois cliff top monitoring 2009 Wansbeck DC River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 Actions MA01 ‐ River Tyne to South Pier Northern section of coast: Air photography. Long term Two yearly South Tyneside Council (STC) MA03 Herd Sand background monitoring of shape of beaches and cliff and Trow foreshore position. Detailed examination of erosion of Trow point MA01 ‐ River Tyne to South Pier Northern section of coast: Topographic survey. Survey covering yearly South Tyneside Council (STC) MA03 Herd Sand both open beaches and dunes Trow MA01 ‐ River Tyne to South Pier Northern section of coast: Cliff crest profiles; Profiles along the yearly South Tyneside Council (STC) MA03 Herd Sand Ryhope cliff Trow MA01 ‐ River Tyne to South Pier Northern section of coast: Crest profiles; Local variation of quarterly South Tyneside Council (STC) MA03 Herd Sand beaches and vulnerability of defences (along the Seaburn walls) Trow MA01 ‐ River Tyne to South Pier Northern section of coast: Defence inspection. Visual inspection After storms/ South Tyneside Council (STC) MA03 Herd Sand and record photographs of defences. two yearly Trow MA01 ‐ River Tyne to South Pier Northern section of coast: Bathymetric survey. Corridor survey Five yearly South Tyneside Council (STC) MA03 Herd Sand out to 10m CD contour at Sunderland North beach. Corridor Trow survey out to 20m. CD contour centred on Herd sands. 10 yearly MA03 ‐ Trow, Frenchmans Bay to Lizard Southern section of coast: Air photography Long term Two yearly South Tyneside Council (STC) MA06 Point, Lizard Point to Souter Point background monitoring of erosion of cliffs.

7-12 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

and Souter Point to Sunderland Harbour MA03 ‐ Trow, Frenchmans Bay to Lizard Southern section of coast: Topographic survey. Survey covering yearly South Tyneside Council (STC) MA06 Point, Lizard Point to Souter Point Trow Quarry. and Souter Point to Sunderland Harbour MA03 ‐ Trow, Frenchmans Bay to Lizard Southern section of coast: Defence inspection Visual inspection After storms/ South Tyneside Council (STC) MA06 Point, Lizard Point to Souter Point of defences. and record photographs two yearly and Souter Point to Sunderland Harbour MA06 ‐ Souter Point to Sunderland Air photography: Long term background monitoring of shape Two yearly Sunderland City Council MA08 Harbour, Sunderland Harbour of beaches and cliff and foreshore position. and Sunderland Harbour to Pincushion Point MA06 ‐ Souter Point to Sunderland Topographic survey: Survey covering beaches to north and yearly Sunderland City Council MA08 Harbour, Sunderland Harbour south of Sunderland with local survey at the Bents and Sunderland Harbour to Pincushion Point MA06 ‐ Souter Point to Sunderland Cliff crest profiles: Profiles along the Ryhope cliff yearly Sunderland City Council MA08 Harbour, Sunderland Harbour and Sunderland Harbour to Pincushion Point MA06 ‐ Souter Point to Sunderland Crest profiles: Local variation of beaches and vulnerability of quarterly Sunderland City Council MA08 Harbour, Sunderland Harbour defences along the Seaburn walls and Sunderland Harbour to Pincushion Point MA06 ‐ Souter Point to Sunderland Defence inspection: Visual inspection and record photographs After storms/ Sunderland City Council MA08 Harbour, Sunderland Harbour of defences. two yearly and Sunderland Harbour to Pincushion Point MA06 ‐ Souter Point to Sunderland Bathymetric survey: Corridor survey out to 10m CD contour Five yearly Sunderland City Council MA08 Harbour, Sunderland Harbour at Sunderland North beach. and Sunderland Harbour to Pincushion Point MA06 ‐ Souter Point to Sunderland Bathymetric survey: Corridor survey out to 20m. CD contour 10 yearly Sunderland City Council MA08 Harbour, Sunderland Harbour

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

and Sunderland Harbour to Pincushion Point MA09‐ Pincushion Point to Chourdon Air photography: Long term background monitoring of cliff Two yearly Easington DC MA11 Point, Chourdon Point to erosion. Blackhall Rocks and Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Breakwater MA09‐ Pincushion Point to Chourdon Beach profiles: Covering areas identified in strategy, establishing yearly Easington DC MA11 Point, Chourdon Point to both trends and variation. Blackhall Rocks and Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Breakwater MA09‐ Pincushion Point to Chourdon Crest profiles: Erosion of Cliff crest at Dawdon Beach yearly Easington DC MA11 Point, Chourdon Point to Blackhall Rocks and Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Breakwater MA09‐ Pincushion Point to Chourdon Defence inspection: Visual inspection and record photographs After storms/ Easington DC MA11 Point, Chourdon Point to of defences. two yearly Blackhall Rocks and Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Breakwater MA09‐ Pincushion Point to Chourdon Bathymetric survey: Corridor survey out to 10m CD contour Five yearly Easington DC MA11 Point, Chourdon Point to at Seaham. Blackhall Rocks and Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Breakwater MA09‐ Pincushion Point to Chourdon Bathymetric survey: Corridor survey out to 20m. CD contour, 10 yearly Easington DC MA11 Point, Chourdon Point to centred on bays along frontage Blackhall Rocks and Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Breakwater MA11 Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Monitoring recommendations for North Hartlepool: Air Two yearly Hartlepool BC Breakwater photography. Long term background monitoring of shape of beaches and pressures on natural frontages. MA11 Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Monitoring recommendations for North Hartlepool: Topographic Yearly Hartlepool BC Breakwater survey. Survey covering open beaches and back dunes. MA11 Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Monitoring recommendations for North Hartlepool: Topographic Five yearly Hartlepool BC Breakwater survey. Survey covering rock headland MA11 Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Monitoring recommendations for North Hartlepool: Defence After storms/ Hartlepool BC Breakwater inspection. Visual inspection and record photographs of two yearly defences.

7-14 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

MA12 Hartlepool Bay Monitoring recommendations for Hartlepool Bay: Topographic yearly Hartlepool BC survey. Survey covering foreshore levels. MA12 Hartlepool Bay Monitoring recommendations for Hartlepool Bay: Defence After storms/ Hartlepool BC inspection. Visual inspection and record photographs of two yearly defences MA12 Hartlepool Bay Monitoring recommendations for Hartlepool Bay: Bird counts As required Hartlepool BC Establish bird use of area in the lee of the Heugh Breakwater. (Co‐ordinate with TBC) MA12 Hartlepool Bay Monitoring recommendations for Hartlepool Bay: Bathymetric Determined by Hartlepool BC survey. Co‐ordinate monitoring with Tees Port port operations MA12 Hartlepool Bay Monitoring recommendations for Hartlepool Bay: Water levels Event driven Hartlepool BC Collate local water level data. MA13 Tees Bay Monitoring recommendations for Seaton Carew and Teesmouth Two yearly Hartlepool BC Air photography: Long term background monitoring of the evolution of Tees Bay. MA13 Tees Bay Monitoring recommendations for Seaton Carew and Teesmouth yearly Hartlepool BC Topographic survey: Survey covering foreshore and dunes levels. MA13 Tees Bay Monitoring recommendations for Seaton Carew and Teesmouth After storms / Hartlepool BC Topographic survey: Local survey in front of Seaton Carew six monthly MA13 Tees Bay Monitoring recommendations for Seaton Carew and Teesmouth After storms/ Hartlepool BC Defence inspection: Visual inspection and record photographs two yearly of defences. MA13 Tees Bay Monitoring recommendations for Seaton Carew and Teesmouth As required Hartlepool BC Bird counts: Establish bird use (Co‐ordinate with TBC) MA13 Tees Bay Monitoring recommendations for Seaton Carew and Teesmouth Determined by Hartlepool BC Bathymetric survey: Co‐ordinate monitoring with Tees Port. port operations MA13 Tees Bay Monitoring recommendations for Seaton Carew and Teesmouth Event driven Hartlepool BC Water levels. Co‐ordinate local water level data. MA14 Coaltham and Redcar Monitoring recommendations for the Coatham and Redcar Two yearly Redcar and Cleveland BC frontages: Air photography Long term background monitoring of the evolution of Tees Bay. MA14 Coaltham and Redcar Monitoring recommendations for the Coatham and Redcar yearly Redcar and Cleveland BC frontages: Topographic Survey covering foreshore and dunes levels. MA14 Coaltham and Redcar Monitoring recommendations for the Coatham and Redcar After storms / Redcar and Cleveland BC frontages: Topographic survey Local survey in front of six monthly

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Coatham, Redcar and Redcar East MA14 Coaltham and Redcar Monitoring recommendations for the Coatham and Redcar After storms/ Redcar and Cleveland BC frontages: Defence inspection Visual inspection and record two yearly photographs of defences. MA14 Coaltham and Redcar Monitoring recommendations for the Coatham and Redcar Determined by Redcar and Cleveland BC frontages: Bathymetric survey Co‐ordinate monitoring with Tees port operations Port MA14 Coaltham and Redcar Monitoring recommendations for the Coatham and Redcar Event driven Redcar and Cleveland BC frontages. Water levels Co‐ordinate local water level data. MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. Two yearly Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Air photography: Long term background monitoring of the Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and evolution of cliffs. Cowbar and Staithes MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. Monthly Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Cliff face surveys; Support work by Durham University Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and Cowbar and Staithes MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. yearly Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Cliff crest profiles; Continue monitoring profiles at Cowbar lane Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and Cowbar and Staithes MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. yearly Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Topographic survey: Survey covering foreshore and dunes levels Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and Cowbar and Staithes MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. After storms / Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Topographic survey: Local survey in front of Saltburn, Cattersty six monthly Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and Sands and Skinningrove. Cowbar and Staithes MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. After storms/ Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Defence inspection; Visual inspection and record photographs two yearly Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and of defences. Cowbar and Staithes MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. Five yearly Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Bathymetric survey: Corridor survey out to 10m CD contour Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and at Saltburn and Skinningrove.

7-16 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Cowbar and Staithes MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. 10 yearly Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Bathymetric survey: Corridor survey out to 20m. CD contour, Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and centred on bays along frontage. Cowbar and Staithes MA15 ‐ Mill Howle to Saltburn, Saltburn Monitoring recommendations for Marske through to Staithes. Ten yearly Redcar and Cleveland BC MA19 to Huntcliff, Huntcliff and Sea bed sediments: Side scan sonar and initial seismic profiling Hummersea Cliff, Boulby and Cowbar and Staithes MA19 ‐ Cowbar and Staithes, Staithes to Monitoring recommendations for the northern section of the Two yearly Scarborough BC MA25 Runswick Bay, Runswick Bay to coast. Air photography. Long term background monitoring of the Sandsend Ness, Sandsend Wyke, evolution of cliffs. Whitby, Whitby to Saltwick Nab and Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) MA19 ‐ Cowbar and Staithes, Staithes to Monitoring recommendations for the northern section of the Monthly Scarborough BC MA25 Runswick Bay, Runswick Bay to coast: Cliff face surveys. Stability issues Sandsend Ness, Sandsend Wyke, Whitby, Whitby to Saltwick Nab and Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) MA19 ‐ Cowbar and Staithes, Staithes to Monitoring recommendations for the northern section of the yearly Scarborough BC MA25 Runswick Bay, Runswick Bay to coast. Topographic survey: Survey covering foreshore and cliffs Sandsend Ness, Sandsend Wyke, in Whitby Bay. Whitby, Whitby to Saltwick Nab and Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) MA19 ‐ Cowbar and Staithes, Staithes to Monitoring recommendations for the northern section of the After storms / Scarborough BC MA25 Runswick Bay, Runswick Bay to coast. Topographic survey: Local survey in front of Runswick six monthly Sandsend Ness, Sandsend Wyke, and Robin Hood’s Bay. Whitby, Whitby to Saltwick Nab and Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) MA19 ‐ Cowbar and Staithes, Staithes to Monitoring recommendations for the northern section of the After storms/ Scarborough BC MA25 Runswick Bay, Runswick Bay to coast. Defence inspection: Visual inspection and record annually Sandsend Ness, Sandsend Wyke, photographs of defences.

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Whitby, Whitby to Saltwick Nab and Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) MA19 ‐ Cowbar and Staithes, Staithes to Monitoring recommendations for the northern section of the Five yearly Scarborough BC MA25 Runswick Bay, Runswick Bay to coast. Bathymetric survey: Corridor survey out to 10m CD Sandsend Ness, Sandsend Wyke, contour at Whitby. Whitby, Whitby to Saltwick Nab and Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) MA19 ‐ Cowbar and Staithes, Staithes to Monitoring recommendations for the northern section of the 10 yearly Scarborough BC MA25 Runswick Bay, Runswick Bay to coast. Bathymetric survey. Corridor survey out to 20m. CD Sandsend Ness, Sandsend Wyke, contour, centred on bays along frontage. Whitby, Whitby to Saltwick Nab and Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) MA19 ‐ Cowbar and Staithes, Staithes to Monitoring recommendations for the northern section of the Ten yearly Scarborough BC MA25 Runswick Bay, Runswick Bay to coast. Sea bed sediments. Side scan sonar and initial seismic Sandsend Ness, Sandsend Wyke, profiling Whitby, Whitby to Saltwick Nab and Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) MA26‐ Hundale Point to Scalby Ness, Monitoring recommendations for the Scarborough frontage: Air Two yearly Scarborough BC MA29 Scarborough North Bay and photography. Long term background monitoring of the beach Castle Cliffs, Scarborough Sough shape and cliffs. Sands and Harbour and Black Rocks to Filey Brigg MA26‐ Hundale Point to Scalby Ness, Monitoring recommendations for the Scarborough frontage: Continuous Scarborough BC MA29 Scarborough North Bay and Cliff stability. Inclinometers and slope movement Castle Cliffs, Scarborough Sough Sands and Harbour and Black Rocks to Filey Brigg MA26‐ Hundale Point to Scalby Ness, Monitoring recommendations for the Scarborough frontage: yearly Scarborough BC MA29 Scarborough North Bay and Topographic survey. Survey covering foreshore areas. Castle Cliffs, Scarborough Sough (monitoring linked to beach management) Sands and Harbour and Black Rocks to Filey Brigg

7-18 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

MA26‐ Hundale Point to Scalby Ness, Monitoring recommendations for the Scarborough frontage: After storms / Scarborough BC MA29 Scarborough North Bay and Topographic survey. Local survey in front of defences six monthly Castle Cliffs, Scarborough Sough Sands and Harbour and Black Rocks to Filey Brigg MA26‐ Hundale Point to Scalby Ness, Monitoring recommendations for the Scarborough frontage: After storms/ Scarborough BC MA29 Scarborough North Bay and Defence inspection. Visual inspection and record photographs annually Castle Cliffs, Scarborough Sough of defences. Sands and Harbour and Black Rocks to Filey Brigg MA26‐ Hundale Point to Scalby Ness, Monitoring recommendations for the Scarborough frontage. Five yearly Scarborough BC MA29 Scarborough North Bay and Bathymetric survey. Corridor survey out to 10m CD contour. Castle Cliffs, Scarborough Sough Sands and Harbour and Black Rocks to Filey Brigg MA26‐ Hundale Point to Scalby Ness, Monitoring recommendations for the Scarborough frontage. 10 yearly Scarborough BC MA29 Scarborough North Bay and Bathymetric survey. Corridor survey out to 10m CD contour. Castle Cliffs, Scarborough Sough Corridor survey out to 20m. CD contour, centred on bays along Sands and Harbour and Black frontage. Rocks to Filey Brigg MA26‐ Hundale Point to Scalby Ness, Monitoring recommendations for the Scarborough frontage. Sea 10 yearly Scarborough BC MA29 Scarborough North Bay and bed sediments. Side scan sonar and initial seismic profiling Castle Cliffs, Scarborough Sough Sands and Harbour and Black Rocks to Filey Brigg MA30 ‐ Filey, South Filey Bay and Muston Monitoring recommendations for the southern section of coast. Two yearly Scarborough BC MA32 Sands to Speeton Cliffs Air photography. Long term background monitoring of the beach shape and cliffs. MA30 ‐ Filey, South Filey Bay and Muston Monitoring recommendations for the southern section of coast. Continuous Scarborough BC MA32 Sands to Speeton Cliffs Cliff stability; Inclinometers and slope movement MA30 ‐ Filey, South Filey Bay and Muston Monitoring recommendations for the southern section of coast. yearly Scarborough BC MA32 Sands to Speeton Cliffs Topographic survey. Survey covering foreshore areas. MA30 ‐ Filey, South Filey Bay and Muston Monitoring recommendations for the southern section of coast. After storms / Scarborough BC MA32 Sands to Speeton Cliffs Topographic survey: Local survey in front of defences at Filey six monthly MA30 ‐ Filey, South Filey Bay and Muston Monitoring recommendations for the southern section of coast. After storms/ Scarborough BC MA32 Sands to Speeton Cliffs Defence inspection: Visual inspection and record photographs annually

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

of defences. MA30 ‐ Filey, South Filey Bay and Muston Monitoring recommendations for the southern section of coast. Five yearly Scarborough BC MA32 Sands to Speeton Cliffs Bathymetric survey. Corridor survey out to 10m CD contour. MA30 ‐ Filey, South Filey Bay and Muston Monitoring recommendations for the southern section of coast. 10 yearly Scarborough BC MA32 Sands to Speeton Cliffs Bathymetric survey: Corridor survey out to 20m. CD contour, centred on bays along frontage. MA30 ‐ Filey, South Filey Bay and Muston Monitoring recommendations for the southern section of coast. 10 yearly Scarborough BC MA32 Sands to Speeton Cliffs Sea bed sediments: Side scan sonar and initial seismic profiling MA33 Muston sands to Flamborough Air photography. Long term background monitoring of the beach Two yearly Scarborough BC Head shape and cliffs. MA33 Muston sands to Flamborough Defence inspection: Visual inspection and record photographs After storms/ Scarborough BC Head of defences. two annually

Table D4. Scheme Actions

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2 Actions MA02 Tweed Estuary Raise defence crests on northern bank. 2055 Berwick BC MA02 Tweed Estuary Raise defence crests on southern bank. 2055 Berwick BC MA08 Beadnell and Beadnell Bay Beadnell North Sea Wall Improvements 2010‐2012 Berwick BC MA11 Boulmer to Seaton Point Boulmer. 2009‐2013 Alnwick DC MA18 Snab Point Short term defence to road north of Snab Point. 2012‐2013 Castle Morpeth BC MA20 Newbiggin Local intervention between Newbiggin Point and Church Point to 2010 Wansbeck DC safeguard St. Bartholomew’s Church and graveyard. MA20 Newbiggin Newbiggin Bay Beach Recharge 2008 Wansbeck DC MA21 Spital Point to Blyth East Pier Improvement works at North Blyth 2011 Private MA23 Blyth West Pier to Seaton Sluice Dune management along Blyth South Beach using ‘soft’ Ongoing Blyth Valley DC techniques to prevent breaching by the sea. MA23 Blyth West Pier to Seaton Sluice Improvement works to Seaton Sluice harbour structures. 2009‐2013 Blyth Valley DC MA24 Seaton Sluice to Curry’s Point St. Mary’s Island Causeway improvements 2015 North Tyneside MA25 Curry’s Point to Brown’s Point Local works to stop ongoing outflanking at end of revetment at 2009‐10 North Tyneside

7-20 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Trinity Road Car Park. MA25 Curry’s Point to Brown’s Point Whitley Bay Central Promenade – improvements 2011‐2015 North Tyneside MA25 Curry’s Point to Brown’s Point Whitley Bay Southern Promenade – improvements 2015 North Tyneside MA26 Brown’s Point to Tynemouth Improvement works at Cullercoats Piers. 2009‐11 North Tyneside North Pier MA26 Brown’s Point to Tynemouth Tynemouth Longsands Bear’s Back Seawall ‐ improvements 2010‐12 North Tyneside North Pier MA26 Brown’s Point to Tynemouth Outdoor Pool 2015 North Tyneside North Pier MA26 Brown’s Point to Tynemouth Sea Banks Seawall ‐ improvements 2015 North Tyneside North Pier MA27 Tynemouth North Pier to Fish Fish Quay – improvements 2010‐2013 North Tyneside Quay River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 Actions MA01 River Tyne to South Pier Develop new promenade on realignment 2009 South Tyneside Council MA02 Herd Sand Initial scheme implementation to the south of Herd Sands 2011 MA02 Herd Sand Dune management 2008 MA03 Trow Short term defence (to Trow quarry) 2008 South Tyneside Council MA08 Sunderland Harbour to Potential schemes to South Sunderland 2012 Sunderland City Council Pincushion Point MA08 Sunderland Harbour to Scheme under review for Harbour East Bay 2009 Sunderland City Council Pincushion Point MA11 Blackhall Rocks to Heugh Scheme Development for Headland. Detailed appraisal for on going Hartlepool BC Breakwater improving defences. High economic consequence. Impact on designated areas. Maintaining heritage and amenity MA12 Hartlepool Bay Scheme ‐ Town walls 2009 Hartlepool BC MA13 Tees Bay Management for Seaton Carew defences determined from 2010 Hartlepool BC strategy. MA14 Coaltham and Redcar Improved protection to Redcar frontage 2009 Environment Agency/ Redcar and Cleveland BC MA17 Huntcliff and Hummersea Cliff Skinningrove Scheme Development. Define specific works based 2008 Redcar and Cleveland BC on strategy. Support for local community. Economic risk and potential loss of properties. Maintaining access and amenity. MA17 Huntcliff and Hummersea Cliff Schemes: Refurbishment of defences (Maintain Skinningrove 2009 Redcar and Cleveland BC jetty with rock) MA18 Boulby Potential need to relocate Cowbar Lane (not coast protection) 2016 Redcar and Cleveland BC

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

MA19 Cowbar and Staithes Potential scheme to improve flood risk to Staithes Harbour 2012 Scarborough BC MA21 Cobble Dump to Sandsend Ness Scheme appraisal for defence of Runswick Bay. Develop 2008 Scarborough BC recommendations of strategy. High economic damages and risk to properties. Potential biodiversity opportunity. Heritage and community support in line with NYMNP objectives. MA21 Cobble Dump to Sandsend Ness Runswick Bay ‐ Implementation of scheme in line with strategy 2010 Scarborough BC MA23 Upgang Beck to Whitby Abbey Whitby Harbour Pier improvements 2010 Scarborough BC MA27 Scalby Ness to Castle Cliff North Bay Cliffs – Seawall repairs and slope stabilisation scheme Scarborough BC MA27 Scalby Ness to Castle Cliff Sea Life Centre – Rock berm and seawall repairs scheme 2008 Scarborough BC MA27 Scalby Ness to Castle Cliff Peasholm Gap and Clarence Gardens ‐ Rock scheme revetment in 2013 Scarborough BC front of existing seawall, seawall repairs and slope stabilisation MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Scarborough South Bay: Rose Gardens ‐ Rock revetment in front 2015 Scarborough BC of existing seawall, seawall repairs and slope stabilisation MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Scarborough South Bay: Foreshore Road and St Nicholas Cliff – 2012 Scarborough BC Raise height of existing wall, drainage improvement Foreshore Road and slope stabilisation MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Scarborough South Bay: Spa Chalet Cliff ‐ Rock revetment in front 2008 Scarborough BC of existing seawall, seawall repairs and slope stabilisation MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Scarborough South Bay: The Spa – Rock revetment in front of 2008 Scarborough BC existing seawall, seawall repairs and slope stabilisation MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Scarborough South Bay: South Bay Pool – Rock revetment in 2013 Scarborough BC front of existing seawall, seawall repairs and slope stabilisation MA28 Castle Cliff to White Nab Scarborough South Bay: South Cliff Gardens – Rock revetment in 2010 Scarborough BC front of existing seawall, seawall repairs and slope stabilisation MA29 White Nab to Cayton Bay Cliff stability investigations at Cayton Bay 2007 Scarborough BC MA31 Filey Brigg to Muston Sands Filey – Cliff Stabilisation scheme 2010 Scarborough BC MA31 Filey Brigg to Muston Sands Filey ‐ Outflanking defence at Filey 2010 Scarborough BC

Table D5. Study and Investigation Actions

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

Northumberland to North Tyneside SMP2 Actions

7-22 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

All MAs (Northumberland SAC) Precisely establish the nature and magnitude of impacts on Northumberland County Council designated nature conservation sites, with particular regard to the potential loss of intertidal rocky reef habitat within the Northumbria Coast SPA ‐ assess possible impacts, future habitat loss and associated timescales. Any such study should link in with the Environment Agency’s ongoing LIDAR programme, north east tidal gauges, and also with the Cell 1 Regional Monitoring Programme. Study should investigate the loss of habitat due to submergence of a landform feature due to rising sea level rather than erosion MA02 Tweed Estuary Investigate long‐term need to increase defence crest levels 2009‐10 Berwick BC through Tweed Estuary Strategy. MA02 Tweed Estuary Assess need for longer‐term works to retain beach in front of sea 2055 Berwick BC wall at Spittal. MA02 Tweed Estuary Detailed study to modify defences around Sandstell Point, 2020 Berwick BC thereby changing flow patterns around the head, creating more stable conditions for dune development and possibly limited areas of saltmarsh or mud flat. MA04 Holy Island Hinterland Investigate need for local defence to low lying hinterland under a 2012 Environment Agency MR policy, impact on Holy Island causeway and impact on adjacent sandflats. MA10 Castle Rock to Boulmer Detailed examination of benefits of protecting areas adjacent to 2015 Alnwick DC the harbour at Craster. MA12 Foxton Bay Investigate how ad hoc defences at Foxton Hall can be adapted 2025 Alnwick DC to encourage sediment retention. MA15 Amble Investigations into structural condition of North Breakwater. 2009 Alnwick DC MA15 Amble Investigate need to raise road and habitat enhancement 2025 Alnwick DC opportunities to west of marina. MA16 South Amble Investigate local risk to the cemetery at South Amble from 2011 Alnwick DC instability of the coastal slope. MA18 Snab Point Assess short term defence to the road just north of Snab Point, 2010‐2011 Castle Morpeth BC with planning for longer‐term realignment of road and Caravan Park within a Creswell Strategy. MA20 Newbiggin Investigate flood risk to the town via Newbiggin Moor. 2010 Environment Agency MA21 Spital Point to Blyth East Pier Investigations into medium‐ to longer‐term management of the 2010 Wansbeck DC mouth of the Wansbeck estuary, including potential benefits of

SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS

MA MA Name Action Date (where Responsible Authority Number given)

weir removal and/or local training works. MA22 Blyth Harbour Review flood risk to Blyth from various sources. 2009 Environment Agency MA23 Blyth West Pier to Seaton Sluice Investigate local erosion around the outfall of Meggie’s Burn. 2009 Blyth Valley DC MA27 Tynemouth North Pier to Fish Examine defence standard against tidal flooding at Fish Quay. 2009 North Tyneside Quay River Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP2 Actions MA04 Frenchmans Bay to Lizard Point Marsden Bay, risk assessment of areas of concern, initial surveys 2008 South Tyneside Council (STC) and report MA05 Lizard Point to Souter Point Risk assessment (at harbour Quarry) initial surveys and report 2007 South Tyneside Council (STC) MA05 Lizard Point to Souter Point Investigation. Examine nature and extent of material in Harbour 2009 South Tyneside Council (STC) quarry. Concern over potential pollution and amenity use of land. Urgency relates to continued need for defence of weak spots and potential increasing requirement. MA08 Sunderland Harbour to Complete investigation of Halliwell Banks. Management of 2007 Sunderland City Council Pincushion Point potential contamination. Potentially high economic value. Take account of and integrate with long term policy. Management of coastal access issues MA08 Sunderland Harbour to Longitudinal access study to Hendon Beach. 2007 Sunderland City Council Pincushion Point MA09 Pincushion Point to Chourdon Investigate potential contamination at Dawdon Beach. Potential 2010 Easington DC Point consequences of contamination. Providing advice in planning regeneration of port. Management of coastal access. MA20 Staithes to Cobble Dump Port Mulgrave ‐ Investigation to examine slope stability and 2010 Scarborough BC dependency on harbour area. Potential development issues. Maintain navigation. Heritage and community support in line with NYMNP objectives. MA25 Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point Robin Hoods Bay North of Mount Pleasant Study 2010/ 2012 Scarborough BC (Robin Hoods Bay) MA31 Filey Brigg to Muston Sands Filey ‐ Investigation to examine stability of coastal slopes at Filey 2008 Scarborough BC taking account of long term management to main wall.

7-24 CELL 1 SEA SCOPING REPORT_FINAL COPYRIGHT HALCROW GROUP LTD 2014