Pagham to East Head Coastal Defence Strategy 2007

Environment Agency in partnership with planning for the future

Pagham to East Head Coastal defence strategy 2007 Initial consultation – a guide for local communities Published by: Environment Agency in partnership with Chichester and Arun District Councils

Saxon House Little High street Worthing West Sussex BN11 1DH Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/current_consultations/

The Environment Agency and options and completed a salt marsh and mudflats that Chichester and Arun District Technical Review document in form part of a network of Councils are looking at 2005. The results of the review internationally designated sites options for managing coastal are given as an indicative (known as the Natura 2000 flooding and erosion between preferred option for each of the network). These too are at risk Pagham Beach and East Head frontages later in this from rising sea levels. Where on the Manhood Peninsula. document. For some frontages, sections are lost, new areas This will result in the Pagham the option has changed from further inland will have to to East Head coastal defence the 2001 strategy. be provided. strategy 2007. The Environment Agency and This document, A guide for With climate changing, sea the District Councils only have local communities, sets out levels rising and increased permissive powers to construct some of the key issues we need storminess, our existing coastal defences to protect to address in the final strategy. coastal defences are under people and property where Included with this document greater threat. This strategy these are economically justified there is a short questionnaire. will set out the preferred and government funds are We would appreciate you taking options for managing the available. The amount of the time to complete this and area’s coastal defences over funding available from central sending it to the address the next 100 years. The government to provide shown. Alternatively you can previous strategy completed in defences is limited and there is access it online at 2001 did not gain approval strong competition for these www.environment-agency. from the Government. Since funds from areas around gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/ then government guidance has the country. current_consultations/ changed the way we consider Your answers will help us The Environment Agency also management options for the determine the final strategy has a legal obligation to protect coast. We used the revised and further explore the habitats including inter-tidal guidance to reassess the funding issues.

Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 3 the coastline between Pagham and East Head

The Manhood Peninsula together with Pagham is constantly at risk from the sea. The name ‘Selsey’ is thought to have originated from ‘Seal Island’. Until the end of the eighteenth century, Selsey was actually an island with its own ferry to the mainland. The causeway was completed in 1809, introducing the only access road, now the B2145. Although much of the town of Selsey lies on slightly higher ground, its access still relies on the protection of low lying land from the sea.

Since the 1950s, timber, Medmerry, is one of the largest numbers of overwintering concrete and shingle defences caravan parks in Europe. wildfowl. have given protection against The area is popular for water- Because of the international the most serious impacts of based recreational activities importance of these sites, the flooding and erosion. Before and as a seaside resort Government has obligations to then, some areas of the attracting thousands of visitors create new inter-tidal habitats peninsula were eroding at a each summer. Pagham to compensate for losses rate of 8 metres per year. Harbour and Chichester elsewhere. Studies have The area is home to Harbour have important coastal identified the low-lying land at approximately 20,000 people habitats designated within the Medmerry as a prime site for in the main towns and villages European Natura 2000 new habitat creation. We of Selsey, East Wittering, West network. Inter-tidal mudflats therefore need to consider this Wittering, Bracklesham and and saltmarsh contain in conjunction with the strategy Pagham. Commercial activity numerous plant and animal even though losses along the centres around leisure and species and provide feeding coastline of this area are agriculture. West Sands, areas for birds, supporting expected to be small. behind the defences at internationally important

4 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 options for managing Pagham to East Head

For the purpose of this strategy The Pagham to East Head we have divided the coastline coastal defence strategy 2007 into three areas: will set out how we need to manage the coastal flood and Pagham Beach, Pagham erosion risks for the next 100 Harbour and Church Norton years. To do this, we consider a Dominated by large shingle range of options described in banks; the way these move the table below. under the sea’s influence Pagham Beach and harbour entrance connect all these areas. Each option is analysed in terms of: and an estimate of cost, on Selsey and Medmerry pages 12 to 17. There are two Without the shingle bank at • the flood and erosion risk to maps. Figure 1 shows the area Medmerry the low-lying area to people and properties; boundaries, and the potential the west and north of Selsey flood risks from failed town would flood on high tides. • predicted sea level rise and defences. Figure 2 outlines As well as isolating the town, climate change; some possible realignment the land drainage and essential • how much the option will options at Medmerry. utility services for the wider cost and the value of the In this document, we set out peninsula would be affected. assets it will protect; the indicative preferred option The Witterings and Cakeham • effects on the natural for each frontage. We derive These areas are on the western environment. these by applying the standard side of the peninsula at set of technical, economic and Bracklesham, East and West We have considered environmental rules used for Wittering and Cakeham. They management options for all of analysing any flood and include the sand spit at East the areas. Each one is erosion risk. If you would like Head that helps protect part of described, along with the more details, a summary of our West Wittering. positive and negative impacts 2005 Technical Review is available online or by Option Description contacting us using the details at the end of this document. No active Let nature take its course – no work will be intervention carried out to repair defences, allowing You will see that, when we them to deteriorate over time apply these rules the indicative preferred option for Active intervention Maintain – defences are maintained, but the majority of urban to hold the line as the sea level rises, flood risk increases frontages is to hold the over time existing defence line. Sustain – defences are raised and However, as we explain on strengthened to cater for rising sea levels page 9, the options are Improve – defences are improved to unlikely to attract national increase the standard of protection funding, so alternative Managed Moving defences inland in a controlled funding will still be needed if realignment way to a more sustainable position we are to maintain and renew existing defences.

Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 5 what do these options mean for me?

What the indicative preferred options mean for you depends upon where you live. Risk of flooding and erosion varies across each of the three areas, as does the condition of the existing coastal flood defences. Some are in better condition than others.

Pagham Beach, Pagham likely to be reached in about 20 Within this context, the Harbour and years time and 160 properties existing defences will be Church Norton would be lost over 100 years. maintained for the next 20 The indicative preferred option years, with a possible minor At Pagham Harbour and is to hold the existing line of realignment of the shingle Church Norton the situation is defences (sustain) at Pagham spit on the west side of the more complex as it is already Beach. This means that land harbour entrance. This means experiencing fast natural and property would be subject that 350 properties currently changes. For this reason, we to the same level of risk from the behind the defences will can only set a management sea as they have been up to continue to be protected to option for the next 20 years. now. If the funds to hold the the current standard. As time progresses, the line are not available, the beach options available to us should will start to erode. If this were become clearer. the case, the first houses are

6 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 Selsey and Medmerry At the Bill, our work has The indicative preferred option The existing defences at shown that the cost of for Selsey’s West Beach is to Selsey’s East Beach provide renewing and maintaining hold the line. This means protection from flooding and defences against erosion are carrying out urgently needed erosion for 1,000 houses. greater than the value of the work to stop the deterioration Given the good condition of properties protected. The of the large concrete defences. these defences, no major work indicative preferred option is This option would not involve should be needed for the next for no active intervention to raising the defences. 20 years. The indicative take place. This means we Properties would be subject to preferred option means that the will allow the existing an increasing risk of flooding defences should be maintained defences to wear away and let over time. If we don’t carry out to the same height over the 100 the land erode. We expect the these works, we expect the years of the strategy. However, sea to reach the first houses defences to start to fail within irrespective of this, as climate within 50 years. A total of 100 five years; the sea would changes and sea levels rise, the houses could be lost continue to erode the land and risk of flooding is still likely within 100 years. could claim 150 houses over to increase. the next 100 years.

Medmerry realignment (Figure 2) open to regular shows the likely scale of bank options flooding. It is likely that 50 lengths needed. Under the Our studies have shown that properties, together with realignment option, once the realigning the coast inland at sewage pumping stations and shingle bank has breached we Medmerry can provide electricity sub-stations, would would expect the areas protection for people and flood within a year after the between the banks to flood, property in the long-term. bank is breached. covering the blue shaded area Banks constructed inland will now and the additional green There are several options for not need to be as large as those area by the year 2100. the position of the new inland on the coast as they won’t banks. Each bank would need The eastern bank option 1, receive the full force of the to run from high ground on the stretching north from the waves as they would on the current coastline to high Embassy Club at West Sands open coast. The option will ground inland. One bank Holiday Park would protect however mean the flooding of a would be needed to protect properties and their access. relatively large area of land and Earnley and Bracklesham to the The Eastern bank option 2, additional works to re-route west and another eastern bank would create more inter-tidal local drainage. to protect the sewage works, habitat but also lead to the loss The current shingle bank B2145 road and properties to of some properties and much of defence at Medmerry is likely to the west of Selsey. the West Sands Holiday Park. be breached within a year Figure 2 shows a possible We want to work with the without the costly works each location for the western bank Manhood Peninsula community winter to maintain and restore and two options for positions to choose locations for the it. Such a breach would leave of an eastern bank. Other inland banks. the whole of the low-lying area options are possible. The map shaded blue on the map

Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 7 East Wittering, Cakeham drifts naturally along the coast and West Wittering from the bank at Medmerry. Our assessment shows that we This provides protection against should continue to maintain erosion even as the groynes and the beaches between East wooden defences wear out. As Wittering and Cakeham as they some properties in East are now. Irrespective of this, Wittering are very close to the the level of flood risk to people beach, they would be at risk and properties will increase as from erosion if the shingle is sea levels rise. lost. Without any action this could be in as little as five years The scale of works needed to time. Over 100 years, the maintain defences at East eroding coastline could result in Wittering and Cakeham depend the loss of 550 properties. upon the amount of shingle that East Wittering

West Wittering managed If the sea breaks through the properties in West Wittering realignment spit it could create a second would be at risk of flooding. Chichester Harbour is channel into the harbour Careful monitoring will be important to the local reducing the tidal flows that needed after each change to economy; the Harbour help keep the main channel find out effects on the spit, Conservancy estimate that clear. Alternatively, the sea may channels and neighbouring many of the 650 marine related simply wash over the spit and frontages. If adverse effects jobs depend on continued have no impact on navigation. are seen, such as the formation navigability of the harbour. The There would be a need to of a second channel into the indicative preferred option of manage visitor access if the spit harbour as a result of the spit managed realignment at West became cut off at high tide. breaching, adaptive Wittering’s frontage would The defences that hold the management actions may be allow East Head spit to change Hinge in its current position needed. This could include in response to the sea’s would need to be removed to recycling of local beach actions. The changes would allow the spit to realign. The materials, sand trapping or need managing to take account management of this other appropriate measures. of the spit’s important role in realignment would involve It will be important that such coastal protection for West taking out defences gradually. operations don’t harm the Wittering, maintaining Over time, the western end of internationally designated navigation in the harbour and the car park would probably habitat of the harbour. We want as an attractive amenity for erode away and the beach to consult with the local people. Management needs to would move inland. Flood community to determine the be sensitive to the banks would need to be built to best way to manage this stretch environmental importance of protect the centre of West of the coast. East Head and the Harbour and Wittering village from flooding. avoid unnecessary impacts. Without any works, around 100

8 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 funding

Despite our indicative preferred options, we have to accept that there is a limit to the national funding available for coastal defence schemes. Central government funds are currently only given to those schemes that result in the highest priority scores across England, based on detailed analysis of economic, social and environmental criteria.

This means that even if locally may change if the criteria 4) No funding the benefit of protecting a lot themselves change or if more Under the current funding of houses at risk from money is made available, but criteria, the only choice flooding significantly there is always the risk that available may be to stop outweighs the costs, there other schemes around the maintaining the defences and can still be another scheme country will continue to have a allowing natural processes to in the country that rates higher priority. take their course. This would higher. Getting a share of leave a large number of 2) Find private funding national funds is not properties and areas of land at Land and property owners may guaranteed in the long-term risk of flooding and erosion at have the opportunity to fund and is unlikely in the near various stages over the next their own defences. This will future. 100 years. only be effective if the works In this document, we have set are co-ordinated and planned Plans would be needed to out the indicative preferred so that they don’t inadvertently detail how the affected options identified by our recent cause more problems for communities could cope with studies for managing flood and others (reducing the amount of this option. This could range erosion risk between Pagham shingle that naturally moves from improving flood warning to East Head. It should be along the beach to protect systems, protecting individual noted that there is an urgent others). These will also only properties and introducing need to carry out works along cover a portion of the areas at emergency evacuation plans, some of the urban coastline risk and elsewhere further to abandoning properties now. Given the uncertainty of funding through other sources altogether at a future date. national funding however, we will be needed. The Such plans would also be need to explore other Environment Agency and local needed with a no active alternatives together with authorities would only support intervention option. The costs those communities affected. proposals funded separately if for this will be small compared they are sustainable in the with other options but are The choices: longer term. included in the tables on 1) Await national funding 3) Alternative public funding pages 13, 15 and 17. The indicative preferred Local levies or council tax We now want your views. options we have identified increases could be explored. Please use the questionnaire based on the economic, Consideration needs to be included with this document technical and environmental given to whether only those to have your say. criteria are unlikely to gain living on the peninsula should central government funding; contribute or if the whole of we have to accept that waiting Chichester and Arun Districts for national funding could be would be more appropriate. high-risk and lengthy. This

Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 9 10 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 11 options for Pagham Beach, Pagham Harbour and Church Norton Photo courtesy of West Sussex County Council Large shingle banks in front of shingle bank at Pagham Beach. attack. Failure of these in turn and on either side of Pagham Erosion or breakthrough of the would lead to flooding of a Harbour, provide the defences banks in front of the Harbour further 350 properties, over in this area. Erosion to the will change the environment in 300 hectares of land, and place north of the Harbour entrance this internationally designated the causeway joining Selsey to will lead to the loss of 160 site and expose the defences the mainland at risk. houses actually built on the inside the Harbour to wave

Indicative preferred option PAGHAM BEACH PAGHAM HARBOUR/CHURCH NORTON Preferred option from Hold the existing defence line Hold the existing defence line technical review – sustain – sustain for 20 years. Realign the southern spit Managing body Arun District Council Environment Agency, Chichester District Council Current flood risk in any Less than 1 in 100 Between 1 in 20 to 1 in 100 given year Remaining lifetime of sea 10 years 10-30 years defences Approximate value of benefit £4 million £28 million Approximate cost of work £3 million £5 million

12 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 Option Description Positives Negatives Estimated cost No active • Cease all maintenance • Coastline • Unpredictable Pagham Beach intervention activities develops • High flood and Less than • Walls, groynes and shingle naturally erosion risk to £1 million banks allowed to deteriorate • Low cost 510 properties Pagham or fail • No • Risk of loss of Harbour and • Shingle spits would realign maintenance nationally Church Norton and breach under the commitment important Less than influence of the sea wildlife habitats £1 million Hold the • Pagham Beach – maintained • All property and In the medium to Pagham Beach line through recycling of beach land given long-term may £3 million material, or long-term some be: Pagham importing additional material protection • Out of step with Harbour and • Pagham Harbour – existing • Fulfils legal natural Church Norton inner defences maintained responsibility processes £5 million • Pagham spits – maintain the to protect • Increasingly shingle spits by recycling internationally difficult to local beach material designated achieve • Church Norton – maintain the areas technically existing defences and shingle • Maintains bank. Groyne systems would Pagham Beach need replacing after about • Allows time to 20 years consider longer term options Managed • Pagham Beach would be • Adapts to the • Impacts on May be realignment allowed to evolve with effects of designated appropriate in natural processes climate change wildlife habitats the medium to • Pagham Harbour inner • Works with uncertain long-term defences – options to natural coastal • Potential loss depending maintain or allowed to fail processes of beach for how Pagham • Pagham spits allowed • Reduced need public use Harbour to realign for long-term • Potential wider develops over • Church Norton defences expenditure on consequences the next 20 would be allowed to fail and maintenance for coast to the years the beach would respond to East (Aldwick) natural processes • Increasing flood • Some requirement for risk where the construction of defences not local defences improved

The shading in the table above highlights indicative preferred options. The table on the facing page gives details of this option for each of the frontages. Present Value (PV) costs are shown in the tables.

Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 13 73731 Pagham to East Head Brochure 15/11/06 10:27 am Page 14

options for Selsey and Medmerry

The defences at East Beach have a remaining lifespan in breach of the bank is likely to protect over 1,000 properties excess of 20 years. The occur on a yearly basis. most of which are situated on defences on West Beach The majority of the housing in low-lying land and will flood if however, are in much poorer Selsey Town is above the 1 in 200 the defences are permanently condition and are estimated to year flood level and will not be breached. Around the Bill and only have a remaining life of affected by erosion in the next towards the west side of Selsey five years in places. 100 years. However, the only road the ground level is higher and On the west side of Selsey, the (B2145) and all the utilities that 250 properties close to the sea shingle bank at Medmerry serve the town, cross low-lying would be lost to erosion over provides flood protection to land protected by the Medmerry the next 100 years should the 300 properties, large caravan defences. Costs for protecting the defences fail. sites and 650 hectares of land. road and services are included The existing defences at both Storms have breached this in the no active intervention East Beach and the Bill’s bank many times during the option for Medmerry in the frontages are generally in good last 15 years and extensive table below. This infrastructure condition and with minor maintenance is required every is essential to maintain the maintenance are estimated to winter. It is anticipated that a community of Selsey.

Indicative preferred option SELSEY EAST SELSEY BILL SELSEY WEST MEDMERRY Preferred option from Hold the existing No active Hold the existing Managed technical review defence line – intervention defence line – realignment maintain maintain Managing body Chichester District Council Environment Agency Current flood risk in any 1 in 50 1 in 100 1 in 20 1 in 1 given year Remaining lifetime of sea 20 years 20 years 5-15 years 1 year defences Approximate value of benefit £57 million £3 million £9 million £40 million Approximate cost of work £13 million £6 million £4 million £10 million

14 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 Option Description Positives Negatives Estimated cost No active • Cease all maintenance • Coastline • 1,550 properties Selsey East Beach intervention activities develops and 2,000 Less than • Walls, groynes and naturally caravans as £1 million shingle banks • No maintenance well as other Selsey Bill allowed to commitment services and Less than deteriorate • Potentially amenities at risk £1 million or fail creates large from flooding Selsey West area of wildlife and erosion Beach habitat • Potential for Less than Selsey to £1 million become an Medmerry island £8-10 million Hold the • Selsey East Beach, • All property • Increased risk Selsey East Beach line Selsey Bill and Selsey and land given of flooding £13 million West Beach – existing some protection • Increased need Selsey Bill sea wall repaired • Delays loss for future funding £6 million and maintained, of land due • Over time, Selsey West groynes replaced to erosion increasingly out Beach • Medmerry frontage – of step with £4 million holding the present line natural Medmerry is not practical processes £80 million Managed • Selsey Beaches – • Works with • Impact of Selsey East realignment proximity of properties natural coastal flooding on Beach N/A mean realignment processes property and Selsey Bill not possible • Reduced need for land £12 million • Selsey Bill – limited long-term • Potential loss Selsey West realignment possible in expenditure on of access to Beach N/A the centre of this section maintenance the beach Medmerry • Medmerry – either • Manages the risk • Potential to £10 million shingle banks of flooding interrupt supply realigned, or allow • Potentially of shingle to banks to breach and creates large area Witterings control tidal flooding of wildlife habitat with flood banks

Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 15 options for East Wittering, Cakeham and West Wittering Photo courtesy of Chichester Harbour Conservancy Coastal defences along East timber groynes and 250 years in response to Wittering and Cakeham breastworks are in poor coastal processes, gradually frontages comprise a mixture of condition with a remaining rotating towards the shoreline shingle and sand beaches lifespan of less than five years. at West Wittering. The existing backed by concrete walls and groynes at the Hinge, where it The situation at West Wittering timber breastworks ending with joins the land, have contributed is more complex. As a dynamic the sand spit at East Head. The to erosion of East Head. sand and shingle spit, East failure of these defences would Head is of international Options for different ways of lead to the loss of 550 environmental value. It also managing this frontage need to properties through erosion over acts as an offshore breakwater be considered. If no action is the next 100 years. These reducing the risk of wave action taken around 100 properties at defences benefit from shingle affecting the harbour shoreline West Wittering would be transferred naturally from the of West Wittering. The spit has subject to flooding. replenished Medmerry changed position over the past frontage. However, many of the

Indicative preferred option EAST WITTERING CAKEHAM WEST WITTERING Preferred option from Hold the existing Hold the existing Managed realignment technical review defence line – defence with construction of maintain line – maintain flood banks Managing body Chichester District Council

Current flood risk in any 1 in 50 1 in 100 1 in 5 to 1 in 50 one year Remaining lifetime of sea 5-15 years 15 years 5-15 years defences Approximate value of benefit £28 million £10 million £11 million

Approximate cost of work £8 million £5 million £3 million

16 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 Option Description Positives Negatives Estimated cost No active • Cease all maintenance • Coastline • 650 properties and East Wittering intervention activities develops holiday parks, as Less than • Walls, groynes and naturally well as other local £1 million shingle banks allowed • Potentially amenities, at risk Cakeham to deteriorate or fail creates area of from flooding and Less than • East Head spit allowed inter-tidal habitat erosion £1 million to realign • No maintenance • Coastal defence West Wittering commitment uncontrolled; may Less than impact upon £1 million navigation Hold the • East Wittering – • All property and • Increased need for East Wittering line existing sea wall land given some future funding £8 million repaired and protection • Over time, Cakeham maintained, groynes • Delays loss increasingly out of £5 million replaced of land due step with natural West Wittering • Cakeham – existing to erosion processes Greater than groynes and • Reduced risk to • Continued risk of £50 million breastworks repaired/ changes in the erosion of East Head maintained, harder Harbour • Loss of protected defences required habitat to rising sea over time levels • West Wittering – a new sea wall required Managed • East Wittering – • Most property • Loss of small area of East Wittering realignment proximity of properties and land given existing car park N/A mean realignment some protection (West Wittering) Cakeham not possible • Adapts to the • Sediment build-up in Less than • Cakeham – any effects of Harbour entrance £1 million realignment must be climate change possible West Wittering consistent with • Works with • Some changes to £3 million actions at East Head natural coastal land use in some • West Wittering – processes areas necessary phased removal of • Reduced need defences around the for maintenance Hinge, possible • Amenity value of intervention to East Head can maintain integrity of be maintained spit, flood banks inland to protect the village

Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 17 18 Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 Have your say

This document is a summary of a technical study of available options for the future defence of the coast from Pagham Beach to Chichester Harbour entrance. It has been produced by the Environment Agency in Partnership with Chichester District Council and Arun District Council. If you want to provide feedback, please complete the form enclosed with this booklet or visit: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/current_consultations/ A summary of our Technical Review document giving details of the management options is available online from the address shown above, or by contacting us using the details below: Environment Agency Saxon House Little High Street Worthing West Sussex BN11 1DH Completed forms should be returned before Wednesday 14 February 2007 to the address above or by email to: [email protected] Further copies of this document are available from the addresses above or by calling the Environment Agency on: 08708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6)

Next steps We will gather and analyse the feedback provided and use it in defining the draft strategy. We will work on the issues that have arisen so that we can finalise preferred options for managing risks from coastal flooding and erosion for the area over the next 100 years. To go with this, we will produce a report giving details of environmental effects. We will then consult communities on the Manhood Peninsula and Pagham to get their views on the draft strategy. The Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 will then be finalised for approval by the Government.

Pagham to East Head coastal defence strategy 2007 19 Environment first: This publication is printed on paper made from 100 per cent previously used waste. By-products from making the pulp and paper are used for composting and fertiliser, for making cement and for generating energy.

GESO1006BLLB-E-E