Rother District Council s3

Rother District Council Additional Agenda Item:

Report to - Cabinet Date - 11 April 2005 Report of the - Director of Services Subject - Review of Shoreline Management Plan

Recommendation: It be RESOLVED:- i) that the Council supports the SMP recommendation for Jury’s Gap to The Suttons, Camber Sands, River Rother to Cliff End, Cliff End to Fairlight Cove, (excluding Fairlight Cove East and Central), Fairlight Cove (West), Bexhill to Cooden and Hooe to Pevensey Levels. ii) that amendments be made to the SMP in that:-

 River Rother – long term plan guarantees the retention and maintenance of the terminal groyne.

 Fairlight Cove (East) and Fairlight Cove (Central) that the policy be changed to hold the line for all time periods.

This report supports the Key Aim of Protecting and Enhancing the Built and Natural Environment.

Lead Cabinet Member: Councillor B. Kentfield Head of Service: Alwyn Roebuck

This decision needs to be taken as a matter of urgency to enable the Council to make its views known to DEFRA on their proposed Shoreline Management Plan prior to the meetings of the SMT Technical and Elected Members Forum meetings in April / May following the delay by English Nature to complete their environmental analysis.

Background

1. The Council, as a maritime operating local authority, has the responsibility for the strategic management of the coastline which is achieved by means of a Shoreline Management Plan, SMP, produced in conjunction with other local authorities and the Environment Agency. This plan, which is prepared in accordance with guidelines set out by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), contains policy options for the short to long terms management of the coastline. The SMP is a non statutory policy document for coastal defence planning. The Halcrow Group is currently reviewing the existing SMP on behalf of all maritime local authorities. Their work is being overseen by the South East Coastal Group on which this Council has a representative on the technical group and the elected member forum, Councillor Robin Patten. cb0504 – Review of Shoreline Management Plan 1 Version No.3 2. In May 2004 Cabinet considered a draft SMP, Minute CB222/05/04, where it was resolved to note the report but give further consideration to the matter when the results of the scoping study on Fairlight were known.

3. Members will recall the report to Cabinet in December 2003, Minute CB/127/12/03 where Terry Oakes Associates were employed to carry out a Scoping Study of all information currently available on the Fairlight / Rockmead Road area in conjunction with a geotechnical and geophysical survey, Minute CB28/7/04. On receipt of this information Members would be in a better position to comment on the SMP. This work is still ongoing and it is anticipated a verbal update will be available at the meeting.

4. The SMP consultation draft covers a large section of coastline from South Foreland (Dover) to Beachy Head and is split into manageable sections, the areas of importance to Rother District Council are reviewed in 10 sections.

5. A summary of the recommendation is shown below detailing the proposed policy in each coastal section, this shows what management policy is recommended by DEFRA and over what time period. In producing its recommended SMP, each section of the plan must indicate which of the four options it believes appropriate set against the three periods of the plan.

Hold the Line  Maintain or upgrade the level of protection proved Short Term Plan 0 – 20 years Advance the Line  Build new defences seaward of the existing defence line V Medium Term Plan Managed Realignment 20 – 50 years  Allowing retreat of the shoreline with management to control or limit

No Active Intervention Long Term Plan  A decision not to 50-100 years invest in providing or maintaining defences 6. Summary of Shoreline Management Plan

Location Period of Police Preferred Policy in SMP

Jury’s Gap to The Short Term Hold the line Suttons Medium Term “ “ “ Long Term “ “ “ Camber Sands Short Term Hold the line Medium Term “ “ “ Long Term “ “ “ cb0504 – Review of Shoreline Management Plan 2 Version No.3 Location Period of Police Preferred Policy in SMP

River Rother Short Term Hold the line Medium Term “ “ “ Long Term “ “ “ + potential to partial removal of terminal groyne River Rother to Cliff Short Term Hold the line End Medium Term “ “ “

Long Term Managed realignment create new structure further from the sea and allow existing defences to fail. Cliff End to Fairlight Short Term No active intervention Cove Continue to allow the cliffs to erode and the shoreline to function freely.

Medium Term No active intervention

Long Term No active intervention Fairlight Cove (East) Short Term Managed realignment Maintain the rock bund and allow some cliff erosion.

Medium Term “

Long Term “ Fairlight Cove Short Term Managed realignment (Central) to further reduce the rate Rockmead Road of cliff top erosions.

This may result in the loss of up to 19 properties in the short term.

Medium Term No active intervention Allow the designated cliffs to erode, at both top and toe of cliff top.

Long Term No active intervention This could lead to 55 properties up to 2105.

cb0504 – Review of Shoreline Management Plan 3 Version No.3 Location Period of Police Preferred Policy in SMP

Fairlight Cove (West) Short Term No active intervention Continue allowing natural processes – erosion of cliffs and shoreline.

Medium Term “ Long Term “ Bexhill to Cooden Short Term Hold the line Continue protecting the existing defences.

Medium Term Hold the line In response to sea level changes in this period there may be a need to increase the structure at some time.

Long Term Hold the line Protect existing defences, maintain and upgrade as required.

Hooe to Pevensey Short Term Hold the line Levels Continue protecting the low level hinterland and shoreline.

Medium Term Hold the line Becoming more difficult to achieve.

Long Term Hold the line May require substantial engineering structures.

7. Having considered the recommended policy for each section of Rother’s coastline it is considered the District’s needs have been fully met in areas:

Jury’s Gap to The Suttons Hold the Line Camber Sands “ “ “ River Rother to Cliff End “ “ “ Bexhill to Cooden “ “ “ Hooe to Pevensey Levels “ “ “

The remaining five areas of the SMP have a less desirable impact on the District’s coastline and need to be considered individually.

cb0504 – Review of Shoreline Management Plan 4 Version No.3 i) River Rother Hold the line is proposed and is in the District’s best interest. It is the long term proposal for managed realignment which gives cause for concern. The potential loss of the terminal groyne on the River Rother, western side, could make the river un-navigable and cause an eastward shift of shingle severely affecting Camber beach. Should the terminal groyne be allowed to fail or be of reduced effectiveness it could restrict the flow of water from the River Rother. There is no evidence given or implied that flood water in the River Rother would not be restricted potentially causing flooding up river. Recent history has shown areas of Rye are susceptible to flooding from both the River Rother and Tillingham. The option best suited to this district in the long term is hold the line.

ii) Cliff End to Fairlight The proposal for no active intervention here, where over the SMP long term implementation would mean the loss of property over time. To support this recommendation DEFRA state that this shoreline historically remained unprotected and the cliff is retreating at a slower rate than adjacent cliffs. Over the 100 year period of the plan it is estimated up to 100 metres of cliff top could be lost with a total of 14 properties lost.

iii) Fairlight Cove (East) The proposal is for managed realignment in the short to long term plan. This allows for maintenance of the rock bund to resist erosion against the cliff foot accepting that in the medium to long term the rock bund will become less effective as sea levels rise thereby reducing its effectiveness in preventing longer term erosions. It is suggested up to 18 properties could be lost over the SMP period.

iv) Fairlight Cove (Central) The SMP proposes that in the short term the policy be managed realignment to reduce the rate of cliff top retreat. The practicality of reducing this cliff top retreat is currently subject to investigation via Terry Oakes Associates where a Scoping Study of all existing information is being considered along with new information being obtained by geotechnical and geophysical studies.

The publication of the final report of the Scoping Study has been delayed because English Nature has commissioned a review of the importance, in geological terms, of the cliff fronting Rockmed Road so that it can respond to the Scoping Study proposals. Subject to the receipt of comments from English Nature, the draft final Scoping Study report for Fairlight will be available by 15 April. It will state that a scheme is technically and economically feasible. The technical solution comprises a rock berm at the toe of the landslide to stop it eroding and a system of pumped ground water wells at the back of the cliff top to remove ground water and increase the stability of the cliff face. Providing a toe berm alone will not work as ground water entering from behind will continue to destabilise the cliff. The Scoping Study will comment that without a defence scheme up to another thirteen houses could be lost within the next four to ten years, followed by further losses as the cliff recedes on an episodic basis, leading to the loss of up to 194 houses over the following 90 years under the worse case scenario. Even the most likely scenario sees about 150 cb0504 – Review of Shoreline Management Plan 5 Version No.3 houses lost to coastal erosion if no action is taken. Furthermore under the draft SMP policies the losses in Fairlight Central this will occur whilst the Sea Road frontage continues to be protected.

The other uncertainty at this stage is whether a scheme would score sufficient points under Defra’s priority scoring system to be eligible for grant aid. This system requires that even if a scheme is regarded as technically, environmentally and economically sound it still has to achieve a high position when ranked against other schemes if Defra is to approve grant aid. Clearly without grant aid the Council could not afford to fund any work. The Scoping Report suggests the scheme would not achieve a sufficiently high score to cross the current threshold. As a result, any works would have to be delayed until the threshold score level is reduced, which is anticipated after 2007. However, if the SMP policy is No Active intervention no scheme will be possible as it will be contrary to the approved management policy. For this reason, the Council should recommend that the policy is amended to Hold the Line to protect property and safeguard its future position.

v) Fairlight Cove (West) The SMP proposal is for no active intervention over the whole plan period. This is in line with current management practice and will see the loss of cliff top land leading to loss of footpaths. Due to the increase in sea levels over time it is anticipated sea levels will increase and in the long term cliff erosion could cause the loss of 23 properties.

As part of the consultation process there is an Elected Members Forum and this Council’s representative is Councillor Patten. Councillor Patten has prepared his comments, attached at Appendix II, these should be read in conjunction with Appendix I, extracts from the consultants report. Cabinet may then wish to combine Councillor Patten’s comments with its own recommendation.

8. Summary

Having considered the SMP’s summary of preferred plan recommendations and justifications fully it is considered that the plan for:

 Jury’s Gap to The Suttons  Camber Sands  River Rother to Cliff End  Cliff end to Fairlight  Fairlight Cove (West)  Bexhill to Camber  Hooe to Pevensey Levels All meet the district requirements and that the remaining areas in the plan fall short of this Council’s expectations in that:-

River Rother The long term policy should be hold the line to protect the River Rother entrance and to help maintain Camber beach as a sandy beach to meet the long term needs of tourists and residents of the District.

cb0504 – Review of Shoreline Management Plan 6 Version No.3 Fairlight Cove (East) The short to medium term policy be hold the line and the rock bund be enhanced as sea levels rise to give protection to cliff top properties under threat in the longer term.

Fairlight Cove (Central) The policy be hold the line for all time periods to give protection to the properties between Rockmead and Lower Lane that would otherwise be threatened by the continued erosion of the cliff top.

9. Consultation Process

This Council considered an early review of the Shoreline Management Plan in May 2004 and noted its findings but resolved to give further consideration when the results of the Scoping Study are known. These are not yet complete. This early opportunity to comment requires Rother District Council’s comments on 12 April 2005 to allow them to be considered prior to:-

 Technical Officer Review 15 April 2005  Elected Members Forum Mid May 2005  Report to District Council’s June / July 2005  Adoption July 2005 onwards

10. Members may recall from the report in May 2004 which explained this SMP was one of three reviews which would use a different method of review involving:-

a) A Steering Group of technical officers from the local authorities in the coastal cell together with the Environment Agency, English Nature and a representative from DEFRA.

b) An Elected Members Forum from the same local authorities and East Sussex and Kent County Council.

c) A Key Stakeholders Group involving such bodies as Railtrack, Ministry of Defence (Lydd Rangers), English Heritage and Nature and the technical officers from the local authorities together with members of the Fairlight Coastal Preservation Trust due to the problems at Fairlight.

This process will bring together all the key stakeholders comments into a revised SMP to be reported to Cabinet in June/July 2005.

It was anticipated we would have some formal feedback from the Scoping Study to report to the meeting. This information will need to be included in the final SMP when reported back to Members later this year.

Anthony Leonard Director of Services

Risk Assessment Statement The Council has an early opportunity to put its comments to DEFRA before the Shoreline Management Plan is reviewed by the technical and elected member groups. Failure to consider these early proposals and make recommendations to DEFRA could result in the formation of a Shoreline Management Plan that does not reflect the needs of Rother District Council or its residents or at worst fails to safeguard existing property. cb0504 – Review of Shoreline Management Plan 7 Version No.3