National Recovery Programme

LPRG Lite Asset Repair Planning Brief

Project Details URN: 655 Area: Wessex Project Name Christchurch Beach Replenishment Scheme Project Location Christchurch, Project Governance Project Sponsor David Jordan Senior User N/A Project Executive Nick Gupta Project Manager Tracy Sparrow Senior Supplier N/A Background Information Brief description of At Christchurch during successive severe storms up to damage 30,000m3 of sand and shingle were stripped from beaches along a 5km frontage putting 250 homes and businesses at risk. Scope / objectives of project Brief description of repair. To recycle sediment currently on a spit near the harbour mouth and place on the depleted beaches.

Brief description of how Outline options were explored in a practioners’ workshop held the team have established on 8 April 2014?. Post storm survey and natural recovery the particular scope of monitoring has also taken place. An environmental impact works required. assessment is underway and the minutes of the recent meeting with consultees are appended. What is the rationale for Beach nourishment is the only option to re-establish coast carrying out the repairs in protection for this frontage. National guidance on exemptions this way? What from MMO licence were not suitable to the specific recycling considerations have proposal in this case. influenced the team’s The long lead-in time is dictated by the requirement to obtain an choices? MMO licence before works can commence. Briefly describe what Importing sediment from terrestrial sources. Too intrusive on other options have been local residents through vehicle movements and too costly. considered and why they Delivery of sediment from a dredger constrained by extreme were discounted. shallow water. How have the cost Largely through the Practitionrs’ workshop, but also early contractor

1 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

estimates been involvement. developed? Document here the Risk Management Authority (Christchurch Borough Council) involvement of suitable specialist suppliers such Christchurch are considering using the Environment Agency’s as: Water and Environment Management framework to deliver the Cost Consultant work - WEM Package 11 – Team Van Oord Designer Contractor Document here any Support from Cabinet and funding contribution of £100k. community advice or agreement that has been gained. NEAS screening Support provided by Kevin House and Dermott Smith. Procurement route Mini tender under the Environment Agency’s Water and Environment Management Framework Opportunities Key risks / constraints Environmental sensitivity of source site. Public safety whilst material is being delivered. Migrating salmonids. Outline Risk Assessment N/K Category Project Controls N/K Project Plan What needs to be done to Planning Permission, MMO licence, Environmental Impact get the repairs underway? Assement & project planning. Site investigation Not required, the beach is surveyed by CCO ? every 4 months Service investigation None expected due to beach environment. GPR and UXO survey Watching brief on excavation. Topographic survey Rely on coastal monitoring programme Environmental survey To be established by EIA screening Archaeology Not thought to be required External Legal No Land ownership Borough and Crown Estate Planning Yes Estates / Land Agent Not required CDMC appointed Not yet Consents / Licences MMO and Planning Permission Other Project Costs FDGIA £800k Christchurch Contrib £100k

2 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

Risk contingency

Total Cost £900k

Project Milestones Gateway 2 date Gateway 3 Date 1.2.2015 Gateway 4 Date1.4.2015 Gateway 5 date Review and sign off Project Sponsor David Jordan Project Executive Nick Gupta

Version No Completed by Date 1 Tracy Sparrow 15.8.2014 2. Neil Watson 21.08.2014 3. Jonathan Ross (CBC) 24.10.14

Please send all correspondence to the National Recovery mailbox.

For assistance or further information please contact:

Loreta Adams National Recovery Programme Manager [email protected] 07919 058521

3 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

Mudeford Spit and Beach PSD 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00

10.00 Percentage ofSample 5.00 0.00

Mesh Size (µm)

Mudeford Spit Mudeford Beach

This graph shows the results of particle size analysis from Mudeford Spit and Mudeford Beach on either side of the Christchurch Harbour entrance conducted in early August by Fugro EMU Ltd. It will be noted that there is a very good match between the two locations. This validates the decision to harvest from the spit and use it to renourish the beach. The graph shows also that there is a diversity of particle sizes suitable for the sustenance of a health and resilient mixed beach. The spit will receive the majority of its feed from littoral drift from the West (around ) from Bay, so the relationship with Mudeford beach is not compromised by storm events or natural recovery (when drift is Eastwards into Christchuerch bay or offshore/onshore). The map below shows the current understanding of sediment transport in this area.

4 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

5 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

Environmental Assessment Workshop Notes – 10 October 2014

Invitees: Jonathan Ross (JR), Steve Woolard (SNW) & Gary Foyle (GF) – Christchurch Borough Council Professor Vincent May (VM) – Independent Consultant Geomorphologist Kevin House (KH), John Phillips (JP), Nicky Mitchard (NM) & James Escott (JE) – Environment Agency Gavin Black (GB) – Natural England David Taylor (DT) – Christchurch Harbour Ornithological Group Neil Richardson (NR) – Southern Office of the Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authorities Richard Stride (RS) & Andy Russell (AR)– Mudeford & District Fishermen’s Association Charles Rossiter (CR) – Christchurch Harbour Association Dr David Harlow (DH – Borough Council Dr Sam Cope (SC) & Pete Ferguson (PF) – Channel Coastal Observatory/NFDC l Ria Long (Clerk) – Christchurch Borough Council

Absentees: David Taylor, Christchurch Harbour Ornithological Group

Jon Ross : Introduction, all invitees introduced themselves and explained their job title.

Presentation about proposed scheme SNW – Steve confirmed as a result of last year’s storms, an estimate of beach material lost was undertaken two days after the 14 February storm indicating in the region of 25,000 m3 would be required to replenish beaches between Mudeford Quay and Highcliffe. The scheme was budgeted at £900,000. The Scheme would involve placing material on Gundimore, Avon beach and Friars Cliff. Highcliffe beach has already recovered on its own. The revised volume was now estimated at 20,000m3. The aim is to widen the crest levels at the back of each beach to get them back to levels (Oct) prior to the storms.

Steve confirmed there are were few options as to where suitable material could come from, i.e. quarry, licensed dredging site or a recycling exercise off the tip of Mudeford Sandbank from a natural sedimentation store (ebb tide delta). Steve explained the natural store had successfully been used for beach recycling operations over the past 14 years for quantities of around 5,000m3. Early discussions have taken place with a dredging company (Van Oord) specialised in removing beach material from natural sedimentation stores.

6 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

The sedimentation Transport Study undertaken by SCOPAC a few number of years ago indicated a circulatory sediment system – going from west (Poole Bay) to east (Christchurch Bay). DH believes in the region of 70,000m3 enters Christchurch Bay annually. Steve also confirmed the beach samples taken from the proposed deposition sites at Gundimore, Avon And Friars Cliff beaches were the same sedimentation as sampled from the natural store off the tip indicating the same sedimentation cell (see graph).

SNW – The proposal would be to excavate down to the -1.0m O.D level, (see slide). Excavators and large dumptrucks would place excavated material in to a hopper/ground pump (Grondper) and pump material through a submerged pipeline across the Run on to Gundimore/Avon beach. Discharged material would then be collected and transferred to depleted bays by dumptrucks.

Proposed Timeframe: October – Produce reports November – Submit planning application and MMO licence December – Procurement of contractor February – Appoint contractor March –Planning Control Committee April – Commence on site

No guarantees this can be done by Apr-May

Coastal Processes DH – Commented on there being a strong sedimentary link between Poole to Christchurch Bays, and that the channel in to Harbour moves annually. After the storms it grew longer changed the position of the channel becoming harder to navigate.

RS – Concerned about spring removal – believes natural sedimentation store acts as a breakwater and protects Gundimore beach and Mudeford Quay, as well as boats leaving the Harbour. Channel now turns south east and a new channel has been created through movement which is eroding sediment from Mudeford Quay down to Avon Beach. Also concerned about moving material, can change boundary and breakwater will be gone. In 1999 the channel ran parallel with Gundimore beach until it was opposite Avon Beach Café when it finally turned south east. That was a bad year to get in and out of the Harbour.

SNW – Talked about the Mudeford Sandbank Monitoring Programme, and the need to monitor the area post works.

7 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

CR would like more information regarding pictures and graphs.

SC – confirms these pictures/graphs can be found at www.channelcoast.org (map viewer/data catalogue). She then went on to discuss the review of the Sedimentation Study currently being undertaken by SCOPAC, and some of the early findings could possibly feed in to the EIA report.

CR – believes the natural store will not accrete itself following excavation and that the assumption that it would, should be carefully assessed.

VM – Explained there are no guarantees and this will not be a long term fix, the priority is for coast protection and the work is to sustain the beaches (first line of defence), and that storm frequency rather than storm strength can cause the same problem to reoccur.

Dredging SNW – confirmed that initial thoughts were that an 800mm dia pipeline would be used however this could be discussed with the appointed contractor.

DH – pointed out that the Surf Reef project used a 175mm dia pipeline. Also it may be feasible to use a collapsible section of pipeline for crossing the Run.

RS – confirms if using a pipe this size it could be problematic to boats coming in and out of the Harbour, including the ability to launch the RNLI lifeboat.

SNW – was open to the possibility of excavating minimum of say 15,000m3, maximum would be 20,000m3, and this is why depth of excavation needs to be down to the -1.0m O.D level.

DH – Informed the workshop that Bournemouth BC would be undertaking two beach recharge operations during 2015 totalling 345,000m3 (144,000+210,000m). This operation would actually be undertaken in ‘one hit’ probably in October. Material would come from a licensed dredging site known as Area 451 off the east coast of the IoW.

Marine and terrestrial ecology VM – Explained the need to collect as much information and comments so when a contractor is appointed he will know what they can and cannot do. He will look at all the impacts and conflicts, there may be some underwater issues as there has not been much information gathered on this yet.

8 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

CR asked SNW if he had spoken to PHC about using dredged material from . SNW confirms he had but the problem was two-fold. Firstly the difficulty of sailing a dredger in to the shallower waters of Christchurch Bay and getting it close enough to shore to ‘rainbow’ dredged material on to beaches. And secondly the mobilisation and demobilisation cost for such a small amount. Poor cost benefit.

DH stated that Bournemouth won’t undertake replenishment operations for less than 200,000m3.

SC – asked about what the Council’s Plan B would be, especially if this year’s winter storms erode the overall volume of the natural store.

SNW – responded by explaining that the Council had considered three scheme options: 1. Sourcing material from inland quarry 2. Purchasing material from a dredging company 3. Recover material from a local natural store The problem with 1) would be thousands of lorry movements to achieve correct volume requirements. With 2) not cost effective for small amounts.

DH – confirmed it wouldn’t be economical to deliver by dredger for less than 100,000m3.

SNW – confirmed ideally natural processes should be utilised rather than ‘buying-in’ material. CBC planners had been scoped on the idea and it did not sit well on the environmental front. JR confirmed this statement.

DH – explains mixed sand/shingle beaches are designed to slow down erosion of the coastline, and with that in mind BBC will be making their beaches coarser west of Hengistbury Head. CR asked whether a dredging’s from the mid-harbour bar in the channel of the Harbour should be considered as this was successful for replenishing Grimmery Bank (Stanpit March) and the inner foreshore of Mudeford Sandbank a few years ago? GF expressed concerns of fine silty deposits being deposited on amenity beaches as it would have an impact. JP believed dredging the Harbour would be difficult regarding varying consents.

SNW and KH discussed whether the proposed scheme should be classed as replenishment or recycling?

9 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

SC – confirmed the process of recycling is described as sediment bypass, meaning returning updrift material to eroded down drift locations. This is not the case for Christchurch’s planned works, although the methodology is a form of recycling. SNW said material downdrift at Highcliffe beach wasn’t suitable for Avon and Friars cliff, plus there wasn’t sufficient spare capacity in beach volumes to undertake justify that.

Fisheries RS – shared concerns about raised wave actions on Mudeford Quay, he believes this could expose MQ to more erosion, he thinks the top 0.6m of the natural store provides the most protection. He also mentioned the MQ lifeboat was based in the Harbour and would leave via the Run, so the depth of the channel was critical bearing in mind the diameter of the proposed submerged pipeline at low tide. Lifeboat could use Avon Beach as an alternative.

KH said it was important to capture these concerns in the report.

CR – thinks there could be some timescale issues as notices for mariners need to be arranged and sent out. Also expressed navigational concerns with pipeline on channel bed (shallow).

KH – raised the issue of possible compensation for fishermen. SNW – confirmed this would be carefully considered.

GB – Confirmed a Habitat Regulations Assessment should take account of fisheries and ornithological matters. Two SAC’s were registered upstream on the Avon, one for Lamprey.

KH & JP – Spoke about the EA Clearing Water Directive. They informed the group that fisheries issues were between November and August which takes account of fish travelling up the Run to the rivers beyond and then returning some months later. Consideration mitigating against noise, vibration and turbidity.

RS thought navigational concerns were the main concern not fisheries. No netting of the Run has taken place over the past 3 years to catch salmon.

DH again mentioned using a section of collapsible pipeline across the Run, but would need discussions with a contractor to clarify the possibility of this. SNW thought this would be worth pursuing.

Ornithology

10 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

JP re-enforces the importance of the material being deposited not changing the nature of the beach make up.

GB – had two concerns, particularly Terns roosting at the distal end of the Sandbank and feeding habits there, plus the fish also need to be considered. He also confirms that a HRA assessment needed to be completed. KH explained Terns arrive during Apr/May. He asked SC for more information about habitat mapping; SC confirmed this could be passed on.

GB expressed his concerns by suggesting this could be the worst time of year to think about doing these works. KH asked what was the sensitivity of Terns in respect of operating during Apr/May? GB said they probably wouldn’t return but needed to check with DT (CHOG). Sept/Oct next year would be best.

Water and sediment quality JP – concerns about impact on water bodies

NM talked about water quality – possible contaminated dredged material contained in the silts from the Harbour (middle harbour bar). This was not likely to be a problem as dredging from the middle Harbour bar was not being considered for this scheme.

KH – Important the EIA captures the effects and impacts on beaches either side of the Run.

Recreation GF – Emphasised that coast protection works always take priority over amenity useage. The amenity value was as a result of coast protection works.

VM – confirmed beaches should maintain their recreational useage once these works had been completed.

Licensing & Assessments SNW & KH – started discussion regarding MMO Licensing requirements. Still needs clarity as the project may be ‘Exempt’ from a licence but whatever; an EIA report is needed by MMO to make a decision.

PF – thinks timescales will be tight especially with objections or queries to the EIA, it will take longer than expected. A Plan B approach would be to consider sourcing material from elsewhere, may be quicker to bring in by road. Could we consider less beach replenishment material?

11 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

KH – supported PF regarding limited timeframe, and perhaps consider delaying scheme until the autumn 2015.

SNW – sympathetic to concerned comments but would do our utmost to achieve to start Apr/May however a later start date may not go down well with the EA plus our own Councillors.

JP – believes the recharge schemes planned by BBC during 2015 would be beneficial to the recovery of the sediment store. DH however stated that only the finer material went immediately off-shore and that in the longer term CBC may have to consider a coarser material for our beaches.

KH – suggests screening planning for their opinion as this will identify any issues that need to be considered. SNW reiterated the issue CBC Planners had, not wanting large volumes of lorry’s delivering material.

Archaeology interests KH will discuss with EA Archaeologist. DH said there would only be interest in insitu structures unless something had been swept down river.

Topographic monitoring SNW explained that a post survey would be undertaken by CCO 3 to 6 months after the works. SC suggested speaking to Dr Travis Mason at CCO for extra survey work.

What happens next JP – believes more information should be gathered to look at what effect lowering the store will have before it is done. Do we know if the store has ever eroded down to the level being proposed?

VM pointed out that management policy from SMP relating to the deposition sites was Hold the Line and therefore risk management authorities should be investigating ways to achieve this both in the short and longer term epochs.

VH supported VM comments and underlined the importance of looking at alternative solutions (i.e. alternative sources).

DH explained the importance of the prominent headland of Hengistbury Head and what would happen over the next hundred years should the headland be allowed to erode. It is a major structure on the influence of sedimentation flows in Poole and Christchurch Bays.

12 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]

National Recovery Programme

VM – will be in contact with everyone regarding any data he will need, he will complete soundings with others and produce a draft for SNW. This will be by mid- November as it is needed as a support document for the planning application.

JP – Within EIA will be the EA Clearing the Water Directive analysis which will be feed through JE who will then pass it on to SNW and VM.

GB + JP would like all hand-outs at the workshop to be sent electronically. SNW to arrange.

VM – welcomes any emails with questions or thoughts, this may go through SNW in the first instance.

Workshop closed 1430hrs.

13 of 13 Date: 27/05/2014 Prepared by National Recovery Team Version: 2 [email protected]