Copeland Borough Council

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL

Annual Coastal Monitoring Inspection – July 2016

Inspection Report September 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Coastal Engineering UK Ltd The Copeland Centre 26 Rhodesway Catherine Street Wirral Whitehaven CH60 2UB Cumbria CA28 7SJ www.copeland.gov.uk www.coasteng.co.uk Tel. 01946 598300 e-mail: [email protected] Fax. 01946 598303 Tel. (0151) 558 1956

Copeland Borough Council Annual Coastal Monitoring Inspection July 2016 September 2016

Document History Record

This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Revision Description Date 1 0 Draft for Client Comment 22/07/2016 2 1 Final 22/09/2016

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 26 Rhodesway, Wirral CH60 2UB Tel: +44 (0)151 558 1956 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.coasteng.co.uk

This report has been prepared by Coastal Engineering UK Ltd in accordance with the instructions of their client, Copeland Borough Council. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

Metadata

Addressee Copeland Borough Council, Coastal Defence

Audience Coastal/Environmental Engineers

Contributor(s) Coastal Engineering UK Ltd

Coverage Coastal Frontage: Parton to Haverigg

Creator Coastal Engineering UK Ltd Created: 2016-07-19 Date Draft Issued: 2016-07-22 Final Issued: 2016-09-17 Description Report showing the current state of the coastal defences and recommended actions

Format Text, medium=CD-ROM

Identifier 08/1507/02 – Coastal Defence Inspection 2016

Keyword Copeland, Coastal, Monitoring, Local, NWRMP, Defence

Language English

Copeland Borough Council, Whitehaven Commercial Park, Moresby Parks, Whitehaven, Location Cumbria, CA28 8YD.

Mandate NWRMP Copeland Local Monitoring Framework, DEFRA High Level Target 2 (2005)

Publisher Copeland Borough Council

Relation 16th in series of annual reports

Rights Copyright Copeland Borough Council

Status Final

Subject Coastal Monitoring

Title Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection 2016

Type Text/report Date of metadata 2016-09-22 update

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 INSPECTION DETAILS ...... 2 3 INSPECTION RECORDS ...... 4 3.1 Parton ...... 4 3.2 Redness Point to Parton ...... 9 3.3 Whitehaven North Beach to Redness Point ...... 13 3.4 Whitehaven North Beach ...... 17 3.5 Whitehaven Harbour ...... 23 3.6 Whitehaven South Beach ...... 27 3.7 Disused Mine at Arrowthwaite ...... 31 3.8 St Bees ...... 34 3.9 Seacote Hotel St Bees 2 ...... 40 3.10 Seacote Hotel St Bees 1 ...... 45 3.11 St Bees Golf Course...... 48 3.12 Seamill (North of Ancient Fishgarth) ...... 52 3.13 Ancient Fishgarth ...... 56 3.14 Nethertown to St Bees ...... 60 3.15 Nethertown 2...... 67 3.16 Nethertown 1 (Shore Properties) ...... 71 3.17 Nethertown Shore Car Park ...... 74 3.18 Braystones to Nethertown ...... 77 3.19 Sellafield ...... 85 3.20 Seascale Shore Car Park ...... 88 3.21 Seascale 2 ...... 93 3.22 Seascale 1 ...... 97 3.23 South of Seascale ...... 101 3.24 Ravenglass to Saltcoats ...... 104 3.25 Ravenglass 2 ...... 107 3.26 Ravenglass 1 ...... 111 3.27 Roman Fort to Ravenglass ...... 115 3.28 Brighouse to Roman Fort, Ravenglass ...... 118 3.29 Stubb Place, Bootle ...... 121 3.30 Hartrees Hill (Silecroft) ...... 126 3.31 Haverigg ...... 131 3.32 Haverigg Outer Barrier ...... 136 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 140 4.1 Conclusions ...... 140 4.2 Recommendations ...... 143 5 REFERENCES ...... 145

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Fixed Photograph Positions ...... 146 Appendix II: Glossary of Terms used on Inspection Record Forms ...... 152 Appendix III: Cell 11 Risk Assessment Methodology ...... 153 Appendix IV: Defence Length Charts ...... 156

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd i Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

1 INTRODUCTION

Since 2001, Copeland Borough Council has commissioned coastal defence monitoring inspections of key coastal defence lengths under the jurisdiction of the Authority.

Previous annual inspections have been carried out by CEUK in July 2001, September 2002, April 2003, June 2004, September 2005, September 2007, March 2008, May 2009 & July 2010. No inspection was carried out in 2006 due to lack of available funds and an additional post storm inspection was carried out in January 2005. Subsequent inspections were carried out by Capita Symonds in February 2011 and February 2012.

From 2008-2010, monitoring of the Copeland shoreline was carried out under the Cell 11 Regional Monitoring Strategy (CERMS). In January 2011 CERMS, was integrated into the National Network of Strategic Regional Monitoring Programmes and grant aid from the Environment Agency approved for a further five years monitoring, 2011-2016. Subsequently a framework of Contractors and Consultants was approved to provide services to support the programme, nationwide. As part of this integrated approach CERMS has been re-named the North West Regional Monitoring Programme (NWRMP) and references to future requirements identified in the report are cross referenced accordingly.

At the request of Copeland BC, further inspections were commissioned as part of Copeland BC’s local monitoring arrangements under the NWRMP and were carried out by CEUK in September 2012 and October 2013, 2014 & 2015.

The report of the latest inspection (July 2016), as presented here, provides the results of the survey undertaken and provides views of the shoreline and defences from fixed positions for comparison with earlier inspections for identification of changes in condition and rate of deterioration. Risk assessments in accordance with current requirements have been reviewed and, where appropriate, updated reflecting any changes observed.

The report provides a series of recommendations for on-going maintenance and management for each frontage length which includes consideration of the implications of the SMP2 policies, which was adopted by the Authority in 2010.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 1 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

2 INSPECTION DETAILS

The inspection was carried out over two days – Friday/Saturday 15th - 16th July 2016 and was carried out by Alan Williams of Coastal Engineering UK Ltd. On day 1 the inspection commenced at Haverigg and then proceeded in a northerly direction to Nethertown. The sections from Nethertown to St Bees, Whitehaven and Parton were inspected on day 2. The conditions applying during the inspection are detailed in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1: Inspection Details Frontage Date / Time Low Low Water Wind Water Height Weather Conditions Time (1) (m) (2) Haverigg; Silecroft; Stubb Place, Bootle; Overcast with heavy Ravenglass; 15th July 2016 / rain until mid 15.13 -1.6 SW Force 4-6 Seascale; 10.30-19.00 afternoon. Brighter Sellafield; and later Braystones to Nethertown Nethertown to St Bees; Whitehaven Harbour; 16th July 2016 / Mostly sunny with 16.07 -1.8 W Force 3-4 Whitehaven North 10.00-16.00 light clouds. Warm Beach; and Parton Notes 1. Low water times are BST for Whitehaven 2. Low water heights are relative to Ordnance Datum Newlyn (ODN), which is 4.20m above Chart Datum at Whitehaven. 3. Mean Low Water Spring Tide = -3.20 ODN

The locations previously inspected with their CPSE reference numbers (210/….), are shown in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2: Monitoring Defence Length Locations and CPSE References Location CPSE Ref. No(s). SMP Policy Units Parton 7938a Redness Point to Parton* 7938 Whitehaven North Beach to Redness Point* 7937 11ePU2 Whitehaven North Beach 7936 Whitehaven Harbour 7935 Whitehaven South Beach 7934 11ePU1 Disused Mine at Arrowthwaite 7933 St Bees 7932 Seacote Hotel St Bees 2 7931 11dPU6 Seacote Hotel St Bees 1 7930 St Bees Golf Course 7929 Seamill (North of Ancient Fishgarth) 7928 Ancient Fishgarth* 7927 Nethertown to St Bees* 7926 Nethertown 2 7925 Nethertown 1 7924 11dPU5 Nethertown Shore Car Park 7923 Braystones to Nethertown* 7922 Sellafield Station* 7921 Seascale Shore Car Park 7917 Seascale 2 7916 Seascale 1 7915

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 2 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Table 2.2: Monitoring Defence Length Locations and CPSE References Location CPSE Ref. No(s). SMP Policy Units South of Seascale 7914 Ravenglass to Low Saltcoats 7913 Ravenglass 2 7912 Ravenglass 1 7911 11dPU3 Roman Fort To Ravenglass* 7910 Brighouse to Roman Fort, Ravenglass* 7909 Stubb Place, Bootle (Marshside Cottages) 7906 11dPU2 Hartrees Hill (Silecroft) 7903 Haverigg 7902 11dPU1 Haverigg Outer Barrier 7902a

The sections denoted with an * in Table 2.2 above, are the responsibility of Network Rail and are routinely inspected by NR staff and it is only necessary for inspections carried out by Copeland BC to include these lengths on typically a yearly frequency (in order to identify any shoreline changes that may impact on adjacent frontages). The majority of these sections were recorded in 2016 unless weather or tide conditions precluded recording of conditions.

Photographs were taken using a Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V digital still camera at 5MP (2592x1944) image setting, identified as CBC_2016_X_YYY, where X is the day of the inspection (1 or 2) and YYY represents the sequential frame number recorded on that day. Day 1 photographs are numbered from 001-211 and day 2 from 001-196. A number of photographs were recorded on “Sweep Panorama” setting. In addition all photos are geotagged.

Details of the location the photographs have been taken (in Latitude and Longitude) and can be found in the file properties of each photograph. Alternatively the locations can be viewed using either Google Picasa software (downloaded from http://picasa.google.com/) or by loading the Google Earth files provided with the report (CBC Photos 16_07_15.kmz & CBC Photos 16_07_16.kmz). In addition the locations for each of the fixed photograph position (FPP) locations are identified using a hand held GPS, with a position accuracy of ± 10 metres. Positions are recorded in decimal lat/long co-ordinates and subsequently converted to OSGB36 National Grid with ± 2 metre accuracy. Plans showing the locations of the principle FPPs are provided in Appendix I.

A CD-Rom containing the digital images is provided with the report. In addition views showing key features for each defence length are included within the report, following the descriptive text and risk assessment details.

The proforma used to record the inspection provides the following:

 Summary information relating to code, location and structure type for each defence length;  An assessment of the condition of each element of each structure, in accordance with the Environment Agency’s (EA) Condition Assessment Manual (EA document 166_03_SD01);  Review of the overall level of risk in relation to the structure condition and the protection it is providing, as carried out previously;  An assessment of the residual life expectancy of the structure, assuming that the structure continues to be maintained in accordance with good practice. Note where there are a number of different defences e.g. along the St Bees Network Rail frontage, the minimum residual life expectancy is provided;  A time series of the observations from each of the annual inspections undertaken following the baseline report, focusing on identifying and discussing the differences between this and previous inspections;  Location of and Selected photographs showing key views;  An indicative sketch plan to illustrate its cross- sectional layout and identify individual elements; and  Definition of proposed on-going monitoring and management requirements.

Cells within the NFCDD Element and Survey Data tables that are highlighted pink indicate a change from the previous year.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 3 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

3 INSPECTION RECORDS

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.1 PARTON Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 15:30-16:00 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 297950E 520660N Finish Coordinate: 297810E 520520N Length: 350 metres Responsibility: Copeland BC CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7938a NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11e/PU2.3

HAT Level: 4.7m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.0-8.35m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: 3.46-6.7m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand, Shingle and Cobbles Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Linear Rock revetment Design Standard: Unknown

Structure Type(s) (ST) 1 Sand Beach 2 Shingle Beach 3 Cobble/Boulder Beach 4 Marsh / Green Beach 5 Timber Groyne 5 Rock Groyne 6 Rock Breakwater 7 Vertical Sea Wall 9 Sloping Revetment 10 Linear Rock Revetment 11 Stepped Revetment 12 Timber Wall 13 Timber Breastwork 14 Quay Wall 15 Sheet Piling 16 Gabion Wall 17 Jetty 18 Slipway – Bound Surface 19 Slipway – Unbound Surface 20 Outfall 21 Dwarf Wall 22 Bound Access/Promenade 23 Unbound Access/ Promenade 24 Wave Return Wall 25 Sand Dune 26 Artificial Cliff/Made Ground 27 Earth Flood Bank 28 Clay Cliff

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Revetment Rock armour - 2.5 - 3 8 4 C Revetment Rock armour - 0 3 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

OVERALL RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 12-18 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 4 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by July 2001 No inspection Sept 2002 No inspection April 2003 No inspection New armour and gabion structures are generally in good to fair condition. The lowest section of revetment has suffered some damage since its construction, as a June 2004 CEUK result of overtopping of the crest of the revetment and disturbance of the stone behind. Secondary wall in good condition. Foreshore appears generally stable. There is little evidence of significant littoral drift across the frontage. No change in condition of main armour structure but there has been erosion at the northern terminal end of the gabion wall which has lead to localised collapse of the structure at this point [1180014]. Movement of the beach has occurred with Jan 2005 CEUK generally a loss of surficial fines to the upper beach and drawdown leading to lowering of the beach in front of the defences. Significant amount of shingle thrown up onto the promenade area in the vicinity of the slipway [1180009]. Full face of gabion baskets exposed at north end [1180016]. Beach conditions have recovered to previously observed summer conditions. No Sept 2005 CEUK changes to structure conditions observed. Some movement of beach observed within embayment. Remedial works to address terminal erosion, comprising addition of further gabion baskets and a Sept 2007 CEUK concrete apron have been carried out at north end but localised beach lowering has undermined the apron [9040004]. Continued movement of fines on beach but no significant change in condition of Mar 2008 CEUK structures. Generally beach levels appear to be higher than at time of previous inspection with locally improvement in vicinity of gabions. Generally there has been little change in the condition of the defences across the frontage, however the following specifics should be noted:  There is continuing erosion of the frontage for approximately 150 metres north of the terminal gabions, as identified previously. Whilst the condition [5180005] does not appear to be significantly different to the last inspection it May 2009 CEUK requires addressing in the near future if pedestrian access is to be maintained.  The concrete protection around the base of the gabions [5180006] continues to be vulnerable to undermining, which will in the long term threaten the integrity of the gabions.  There are a number of holes in the rock armour facing and/or rocks have been dislodged, primarily north of the slipway [5180013, 14] No change observed in the overall condition of the defences, although there has been some further slight erosion in the unprotected section immediately north of the gabions [17_005] and the gabion section itself remains vulnerable to undermining and consequent slumping / overturning (see below re management of this section).

July 2010 CEUK The voids in the rock armour facing identified last year remain – no change.

On the north side of the central slipway the beach conditions were similar to last year. To the south of the central slipway the shingle that was covering the upper beach directly in front of the defences has been removed with beach levels typically 0.3-0.5 metres lower Continuing erosion at the northern end adjacent to gabion baskets. Further works Capita identified in the previous inspection report still needed to determine the type and Feb 2011 Symonds extent of management required for this section. Inspection and monitoring should continue as recommended in the previous inspection report.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 5 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Continuing erosion at the northern end adjacent to gabion baskets. Further works Capita identified in the previous inspection report still needed to determine the type and Feb 2012 Symonds extent of management required for this section. Inspection and monitoring should continue annually. As identified previously erosion is continuing at the northern end with increased undermining of the gabion baskets [005]. In the section between the gabions and Sept 2012 CEUK the slipway some of the rock armour has been dislodged. The dislodged rocks can be seen on the beach along the toe of the revetment [002]. To the north of the slipway the rock armour and the beach are stable, as observed previously. Some localised change in beach conditions with more surficial fines visible on the upper beach directly in front of the defences. No overall change in the condition Oct 2013 CEUK of the structures, specifically no further erosion at the northern end of the gabion baskets [017,018]. Remedial measures previously recommended still outstanding. Beach levels along toe of armour defences generally higher than at time of previous inspection with no obvious change in overall defence condition. Evidence of local overtopping at northern end of armour [025] and damage (undermining and collapse) of terminal gabions [019] assumed to have occurred as a result of Oct 2014 CEUK the winter storms of 2013/14, which also caused erosion of the soft deposits beyond the gabions. The northern end of gabions has been reinforced with a vertical concrete wall and hardstanding [022], although this will be vulnerable to erosion in the future where it abuts the soft deposits. Some movement of beach material with noticeably higher levels at northern terminal end [19-21]. No further erosion of bank beyond north end [22, 24]. Environment Agency have erected secondary dwarf wall at south end to reduce Oct 2015 CEUK risk of overtopping waters flooding through arch underneath railway [06, 07]. It is also understood the planning permission has been granted for conversion of building behind defences (see photo 06) into residential units. Little overall change in condition of structures and beach. Locally beach levels at July 2016 CEUK northern terminal end are lower [188-192, 194]. Rock armour defects previously identified remain.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC001 Crest of Armour north of slipway 195 196 North end of rock armour crest, start of CBC002 194 gabions CBC003 North end of gabions 189 190 191 192 193 CBC005 North end of rock armour toe 187 188 CBC006 Part way along armour north of slipway 184 185 186 CBC007 Central Slipway 180 181 182 183 CBC008 1st CoD in Armour south of slipway 178 179 CBC009 2nd CoD in Armour south of slipway 176 177

CBC010 Interface with Network Rail at south end 165 174 175

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 6 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_165 Frame CBC_2016_2_175

Frame CBC_2016_2_178 Frame CBC_2016_2_185

Frame CBC_2016_2_182

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 7 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_190 Frame CBC_2016_2_191

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS It is recommended that monitoring and inspections should continue as previously.

As identified in previous reports remedial work to replace dislodged and re-set moved armour blocks should be carried out at the earliest opportunity. An excavator with a grab for a day should be sufficient to achieve this. It is recognised that access for plant is an issue due to the low archways under the railway. Potential for getting this work done in association with NR work (as below).

In 2010 Network Rail prepared a frontage management strategy for the Bransty to Harrington frontage, which prioritised the need for further modifications to existing or the provision of new defences where the risk to railway infrastructure requires on-going management. This is in accordance with SMP2 policy of “Hold the Line” and included works to address erosion and flood risk immediately north of the Parton frontage, in the immediate term (2014). No works have been carried out to date. Continuing liaison between Copeland BC and Network Rail is appropriate on this matter.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at four locations (WHV14-16, EA03), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2006 (EA) 2008 (WHV) and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out;  Potential use of laser scans or drone survey to establish profiles of rock armour and low spots;  Use of LiDAR data to examine beach changes over a wider area; and  Network Rail to be encouraged to contribute to costs of monitoring in light of SMP2 policy and assets at risk.

It will be necessary for appropriate flood risk reduction measures to be incorporated within development arrangements for the building conversion.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 8 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.2 REDNESS POINT TO PARTON Survey Details

Start Coordinate: 297810E 520520N Finish Coordinate: 297280E 519300N Length: 1300 metres Responsibility: Network Rail CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7938 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11e/PU2.2

HAT Level: 4.7m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 10.50 ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: -0.11-5.93m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Cobbles, Boulders and Rock Outcrop with some sand and shingle Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Stone (worked) Defence Description: Vertical Masonry Wall with/without toe protection Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Toe Concrete - - - 3 5 3 Fl Toe Armour 2 5 1 5 4 Fl Sea wall Masonry - - - 3 8 5 C Sea wall Masonry - - - 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1 Note: Toe works (element 3) are either concrete steps or sloped aprons, rock armour or there are no toe works

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 30 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 9 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by July 2001 No inspection Inspection on behalf of Network Rail (JBA, 2002). The primary coastal defence across this frontage is a substantial vertical blockwork wall that interfaces directly to the foreshore. The consequence of adopting this form of construction has been that over the years, due to the reflective profile of the wall, the majority of finer sediments have been denuded from the surface of the beach, transported away by tidal currents and wave action Nov 2001 CECS leaving the coarser boulders and cobbles standing proud on the beach with the remaining finer sediments filling the gaps and voids between the boulders. As these remaining fines are removed the boulders settle further. A variety of toe constructions have been added over time as levels have dropped. These have provided a function in preventing undermining but generally, due to their impermeable form, have only exacerbated the effects on the beach in front of the defences. Sept 2002 No inspection April 2003 No inspection June 2004 No inspection Jan 2005 No inspection There has been little obvious change in structure condition over the past four Sept 2005 CEUK years. Beach levels immediately on the north side of Redness Point appear lower but elsewhere look to be generally stable. Monitoring will confirm this. Localised concrete repairs to the toe aprons have been carried out at a couple of Sept 2007 CEUK locations since the last inspection. Some movement of the beach compared to previous inspections but otherwise no significant change. Tie-in with Copeland BC Parton defences only examined. No significant change Mar 2008 CEUK observed. Whole frontage inspected. Little change identified across the northern half of the frontage. To the south of the sloping masonry revetment in the centre of the May 2009 CEUK frontage, beach levels are different than at the time of the previous inspection being generally lower at first but higher nearer towards Redness Point, suggesting potential southerly drift may have taken place. No change in the northern part of the frontage. Across the southern half two sections have had a new rock armour toe added since the last inspection:

 Between FPP CBC14 and 17 (297679,519946 – 297574,519841)  Between FPP CBC20 and 22 (297380,519611 – 297281,519443)

July 2010 CEUK Apart from these works there has been no noticeable change in structure condition.

Generally across the frontage there appeared to be more surficial shingle across the upper beach with, particularly, a strip along the toe of the new rock armour toe sections. This material may have been moved southerly from the Parton frontage (beach monitoring to confirm). Some sections have a rock armour toe as noted in the previous inspection report. The floor of the northern tunnel is being undermined as shown in the photograph Capita above. Feb 2011 Symonds Inspections and monitoring should continue as recommended in the previous inspection report. Some sections have a rock armour toe as noted in the previous inspection report. Capita Feb 2012 The floor of the northern tunnel is continuing to be undermined, as shown in the Symonds photograph above. Inspections and monitoring should continue annually.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 10 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Full inspection not carried out due to tidal limitations. Views at north end recorded Sept 2012 CEUK with remainder taken using telephoto lens. No noticeable change in structure condition. As previously full inspection not carried out due to tidal limitations. Views at north Oct 2013 CEUK end recorded with remainder taken using telephoto lens. No noticeable change in structure condition. No obvious change in conditions observed. Full inspection not carried out due to tide conditions. Telephoto views recorded for Oct 2014 CEUK comparison with previous. No change in condition or new works observed. Telephoto views recorded for comparison with previous. No change in condition Oct 2015 CEUK or new works observed. No change. Conditions as previously recorded. It is understood that Network Rail have carried out some minor work around the July 2016 CEUK southern most arch on the north side of Redness Point, where it had been undercut – not visible from inspection point. Ref to NWRMP oblique photos (latest ones dated 8th October 2015) show no new works.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC011 Adjacent to 1st arch access through NR wall 166 - 173

Frame CBC_2016_2_166 Frame CBC_2016_2_168

Frame CBC_2016_2_169 Frame CBC_2016_2_171

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 11 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS In 2010 Network Rail prepared a frontage management strategy for the Bransty to Harrington frontage, which prioritised the need for further modifications to existing or the provision of new defences where the risk to railway infrastructure requires on-going management. This is in accordance with SMP2 policy of “Hold the Line”. No further works have been carried out since the rock armour toe works in 2010 but it is understood that further work is planed for 2016/17.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at six locations (WHV08-WHV13), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out;  Use of LiDAR data to examine beach changes over a wider area; and  Network Rail to be encouraged to contribute to costs of monitoring in light of SMP2 policy and assets at risk.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 12 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.3 WHITEHAVEN NORTH BEACH TO REDNESS POINT Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 14:15-15:15 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 297280E 519300N Finish Coordinate: 297300E 519110N Length: 200 metres Responsibility: Network Rail (seawall) Copeland BC (foreshore) CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7937 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11e/PU2.2

HAT Level: 4.7m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 9.60m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 2.99-3.03m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand, Shingle and Cobbles Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Stone (worked) Defence Description: Vertical Masonry wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Sea wall Masonry - - - 3 8 4 C Sea wall Masonry - - - 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 30 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 13 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by July 2001 CECS Wall in reasonable condition. Beach levels appear to be generally stable. Sept 2002 CECS No significant change from previous identified April 2003 CECS No significant change from previous identified June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change from previous inspections General lowering of upper beach and movement of informal rocks/boulders has Jan 2005 CEUK taken place with erosion and slumping of cliff deposits. There have been some minor remedial works to Network Rail wall since 2001, Sept 2005 CEUK more fines have returned to upper beach compared to post storm conditions, otherwise little change observed Additional concrete apron added to wall at interface with Redness Point. Some Sept 2007 CEUK beach movement but otherwise no significant change Beach levels locally higher against exposed section of wall, otherwise no change. Mar 2008 CEUK Remnants of access across beach visible [3010101]. This possibly used by NR to carry out concrete apron work. No visible change in condition or status apart from less coarse cobble in front of May 2009 CEUK clay bank adjacent to slipway [5180057]. The grassed bank in front the NR wall was used for plant storage and as a July 2010 CEUK consequence material has been moved about in front of the wall. Otherwise no change to conditions observed. Capita No change from previous inspection report. Continue monitoring and inspections Feb 2011 Symonds as recommended. Capita Feb 2012 No change from previous inspection report. Continue monitoring annually. Symonds Sept 2012 CEUK No overall change in structure condition. Oct 2013 CEUK No overall change in structure condition. The grassed bank across the southern end of this frontage has suffered erosion Oct 2014 CEUK due to winter 2013/14 storms [044, 047] but there has been no noticeable change in the condition of the primary defence wall. No change in condition of defences or noticeable erosion of grass bank but Oct 2015 CEUK noticeably less fines on upper beach with greater areas of slag exposed [45]. This concurs with most recent monitoring observations. No obvious change in beach conditions with large areas of slag with no covering of fines visible. Principal change observed is the removal of the tipped cliff fines July 2016 CEUK from in front of a short section of wall [145]. No change in structure condition observed.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CoD in NR wall section on south side of CBC024 140 141 142 143 Redness Point CBC025 S end of exposed section of NR wall 144 145 Slipway at north end of armour CBC026 139 146 defences

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 14 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_139 Frame CBC_2016_2_140

Frame CBC_2016_2_143

Frame CBC_2016_2_145

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 15 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS In 2010 Network Rail prepared a frontage management strategy for the Bransty to Harrington frontage, which prioritised the need for further modifications to existing or the provision of new defences where the risk to railway infrastructure requires on-going management. This is in accordance with SMP2 policy of “Hold the Line”. No works have been carried out in relation to this section.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at three locations (WHV06-07, EA01), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2006 (EA) and 2008 (WHV) and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009 but was not recorded in 2012.

On-going data collection requirements:

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 16 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.4 WHITEHAVEN NORTH BEACH Survey Details

Start Coordinate: 297300E 519110N Finish Coordinate: 297200E 518610N Length: 500 metres Responsibility: Copeland BC CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7936 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11e/PU2.1

HAT Level: 4.7m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 7.20m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 2.06-4.85m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle overlying compacted slag deposits Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Linear Rock revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 3 Fl Revetment Rock armour - 3.0 - 3 8 4 C Revetment Rock armour - - 3.0 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 16-24 Assessment Rating: Low-medium Change from previous inspection: No overall change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 17 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by Revetment is in good condition, with no obvious defects apart from a small section to north of the slipway where beach is providing no passive earth pressure at the toe. Some minor defects identified along crest.

The beach appears to be generally stable but locally mobile. The sand is dark coloured as seen in the harbour bays (210/7935) indicating that there may be July 2001 CECS some transference of material from south of the harbour, that finds its way across the mouth, onto this beach or that the previous shoreline had been supplemented with mine waste in the past. Beneath the upper mobile deposits there are layers of compacted slag like deposits, which are exposed in places on the north side of the slipway. Toe blocks to the armour structure are founded directly on compacted beach deposits, making them more vulnerable to movement in the event of beach movement at the toe. Sept 2002 CECS No significant change from previous identified Beach levels appear slightly lower than previously, to north of slipway – more April 2003 CECS compacted deposits exposed Further changes in beach conditions observed with generally higher levels June 2004 CEUK applying across majority of frontage. Movement appears to be cyclical. Monitoring required to confirm change Further cyclical behaviour of beach observed. Less surficial fines observed with significant areas of compacted deposits visible, indicating that there has been drawdown and movement of the beach.

Jan 2005 CEUK No change in condition of main section and no evidence of structure overtopping. Localised damage observed at crest of slipway near southern end, due to wave run up [1180034, 35]. Also movement of beach at northern end has undermined slipway here and run up has caused some localised disruption to surfacing at crest [1180033]. Beach levels generally recovering across frontage. No maintenance actions Sept 2005 CEUK carried out post storm. No change in defence condition Beach conditions still indicating movement. Significant areas of compacted deposits visible, particularly towards northern end. Remedial works have been Sept 2007 CEUK carried to both the slipways, although the standard of workmanship at the northern end is poor. Further voids at crest and undermining of promenade identified towards southern end [9040065]. No obvious change in condition of structure but general lower beach levels applying than at time of previous inspection. Appears that beach may be subject to draw down with material being moved on/offshore as well as longshore. Mar 2008 CEUK Monitoring data required to inform. Previous crest defect repaired [3010084]. Additional minor defects requiring attention and/or monitoring identified [3010090]. Generally no change in primary defence condition. Further undermining of the May 2009 CEUK crest observed, notably to the south of the central slipway. Generally more shingle observed on upper beach adjacent to toe. No overall change in the condition of the structure but upper beach levels are generally higher than at time of last inspection with more brown surficial sand in evidence, particularly south of CBC028.

The rough concrete at the top of the ramp at the north end of the frontage has July 2010 CEUK been replaced with tarmac [17_066] and generally the defects along the crest where there were voids between the promenade and the armour have been infilled with stone, apart from one section at the southern end (CBC035-036) where voids along the crest remain [17_094] and there voids beneath the armour were observed [17_099].

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 18 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Capita Infilling behind rock armour now complete. Continue monitoring and inspections Feb 2011 Symonds as recommended in previous inspection report. No change from previous inspection. Exposed reinforcing bar at the foot of the Capita Feb 2012 northern concrete ramp may be a hazard. Continue monitoring and inspections Symonds annually. Beach levels in the vicinity of the central slipway have dropped, exposing the compacted slab deposits and leaving a step off the end of the slipway onto the beach [42]. The condition of the revetment structure is generally unchanged, although a local Sept 2012 CEUK depression was noted in the face just south of the central slipway [46]. In addition there a few dislodged armour blocks along the toe. At the north end the slipway remains in poor condition [37] and the exposed rebar continues to present a potential hazard. Some localised movement of beach deposits along the toe of the structure but no Oct 2013 CEUK obvious change in the condition observed. Particular defects identified previously, remain. No obvious change in structure condition overall, although holes in revetment and dislodged blocks along the toe remain [053,054]. Localised infilling with smaller stone has taken place along the crest interface between the rock revetment and Oct 2014 CEUK the promenade [036]. Increased undermining of terminal slipway at northern end has been addressed by extension of the slipway, although a step remains from the end of the slipway onto the beach [045], which represents an H&S risk. No change in condition of defences but in places between the central and northern end slipways the upper beach had been denuded of fines and the toe rock armour was visible sitting directly on top of the slag deposits [49, 52, and Oct 2015 CEUK 58]. Under these conditions the toe armour is more vulnerable to movement which could de-stabilise the surrounding armour. No change in conditions south of slipway [59-61]. No change in conditions along the crest of the structure [131-138]. Along the toe the areas, the conditions where movement of toe rocks had previously been identified [154-156] on the north side of the central slipway remain as observed in past inspections. In addition it was noted that there had been some further toe movement approximately 10 metres from the northern end [149]. Here, as identified in last year’s inspection, the toe rock was effectively founded on the underlying slag deposits and there appears to have been some breaking up of the July 2016 CEUK slag that has destabilised the toe causing a local collapse. Further south there has been some changes in beach deposits with more sand visible [152, 153]. Elsewhere large areas of lower foreshore remain denuded of natural deposits with large areas of hardened slag exposed, as last year.

No change in structure conditions south of slipway but more fines evident on beach and elevations higher [160-163].

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) Slipway at north end of armour CBC026 138 139 147 148 149 defences Part way along toe of armour defences CBC027 150 151 (1) Part way along toe of armour defences CBC028 152 153 (2) Part way along toe of armour defences CBC028a 154 (3) Part way along toe of armour defences CBC029 155 156 157 (4) CBC030 Central slipway in armour defences 134 158 159 160 161 CBC031 Crest of armour north of central slipway 135 CBC033 Further along crest of armour north of 136 137

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 19 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

central slipway CBC034 Crest south of central slipway 133 CBC035 Crest of armour near south end CBC035b Beach south end 162 163 CBC036 S end of crest of defences 131 132 CBC036d Steps at landward end of North Pier 130

Frame CBC_2016_2_136 Frame CBC_2016_2_137

Frame CBC_2016_2_147 Frame CBC_2016_2_149

Frame CBC_2016_2_152

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 20 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_159

Frame CBC_2016_2_160

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 21 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS With further toe movement of the armour stone identified, remedial work to replace dislodged and re-set moved armour blocks should be carried out at the earliest opportunity. This should ensure that an appropriate detail is constructed to avoid further repeat behaviour. As identified previously an excavator with a grab/bucket for a day should be sufficient to achieve this (could potentially be done in conjunction with work at Parton). A continuing watching brief should be kept on other areas of toe armour between the slipways where the passive support from the beach deposits has been (temporarily?) lost.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at three locations (WHV04-06), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009 and has been carried out minimum annually since (apart from 2012).

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out; and  Potential use of laser scans or drone survey to establish profiles of rock armour and low spots.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 22 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.5 WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 13:20-13:30 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 297200E 518610N Finish Coordinate: 296700E 518660N Length: 620 metres Responsibility: Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7935 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11e/PU2.1

HAT Level: 4.7m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 9.80m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: No data Foreshore Dependency: Medium Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Stone (worked) Defence Description: Vertical Harbour Wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 Stone 3 Fl Sea wall - - - 3 8 (worked) Stone 4 C Sea wall - - - 3 8 (worked) Stone 5 FO Sea wall - - - 3 8 (worked) Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 20 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 23 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by Walls in generally good condition.

The pocket beaches on the inside of the West Pier have been formed from July 2001 CECS sediments transported into the harbour on the flood tide. The dark nature of the sand is indicative of the mine waste evident in the south beach hinterland. Local beach conditions appear to be generally stable, although the outer bay is more exposed from waves propagating through the harbour mouth. Sept 2002 CECS No significant change from previous identified April 2003 CECS No significant change from previous identified June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change from previous inspections Jan 2005 CEUK No noticeable change from previous inspection Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Mar 2008 CEUK Additional outer embayment recorded, otherwise no change May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection July 2010 CEUK No changes observed from previous conditions Capita No change from previous inspections. Continue monitoring and inspections as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended in previous report. Capita No change from previous inspections. Continue monitoring and inspections Feb 2012 Symonds annually. Sept 2012 CEUK No change from previous inspections observed. No change in condition of harbour piers/breakwaters or changes in conditions Oct 2013 CEUK within harbour observed. No change in condition of harbour piers/breakwaters or changes in conditions within harbour observed. Remedial works to repair the deck surfacing of the South Oct 2014 CEUK Pier and replace the coping stones along its northern face were carried out in the Spring following the winter 2013-14 storms. Oct 2015 CEUK No change from previous inspections observed. July 2016 CEUK No change from previous inspection observed.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC036b Root of Whitehaven north pier 125 126 127 128 CBC36d Steps 129 Outer Bay in lee of harbour south CBC037 109 110 111 112 122 breakwater

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 24 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_125 Frame CBC_2016_2_128

Frame CBC_2016_2_122

Frame CBC_2016_2_109 Frame CBC_2016_2_110

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 25 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS On-going inspection and recording of condition of defences recommended on an annual frequency.

There is no specific action on Borough Council with regard to on-going maintenance and management (previous repairs carried out by Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners)

Previously concern was expressed regarding the impact of on-going cliff recession at Whitehaven South Beach (ref section 3.6) on the integrity of the Pier wall. The cliff is man-made and it clearly post-dates the Pier wall, as the wall is continuing to be exposed. Visually the wall section that is being exposed appears to be the same as that in the outer sections, which is reasonable given that the cliff area is effectively reclaimed land, however this section is less exposed due to the higher beach levels applying. Following the winter storms of 2013-14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2YwjQKH4E) Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners commissioned a small feasibility study (Haskoning BV, April 2014) into the options for maintaining the integrity of the pier wall and subsequently Copeland BC have let a more detailed study as there is now of less than 20 metres between the of cliff and the terminal end of the wall. The results of this study are should inform on-going management decisions.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 26 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.6 WHITEHAVEN SOUTH BEACH Survey Details

Start Coordinate: 296750E 518400N Finish Coordinate: 296620E 518200N Length: 240 metres Responsibility: Copeland BC CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7934 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11e/PU1.4

HAT Level: 4.7m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 9.20m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 4.06-6.25m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand, Shingle and Cobbles Defence Type: Gabion Revetment Type: Gabion Basket Defence Description: Gabion Wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 3 Fl Gabion wall Gabions - - - 4 8 4 C Gabion wall Gabions - - - 4 8 Residual life 0-5 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 4 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 24-30 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 27 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The gabion defences are not robust enough to resist the exposure conditions applying in this area and have consequently been damaged. However even in a dilapidated condition they are serving a purpose in resisting and slowing erosion. July 2001 CECS The foreshore is mobile across the whole of this frontage and vulnerable to movement and draw-down during storms. The beach width does appear to widen towards the Pier indicating that material locally generated by erosion of the mine waste is being trapped by the Pier structure. No significant change observed from previous inspection but a degree of Sept 2002 CECS worsening in condition of gabions April 2003 CECS No significant change from previous identified June 2004 CEUK A little further erosion of the unprotected cliff has taken place Significant erosion has taken place notably of the fill deposits at the northern end Jan 2005 CEUK (2-3 metres setback [1180046]. The gabion protected access point has been effectively destroyed. Sept 2005 CEUK No significant change observed from previous inspection

There has been some further significant erosion of the cliff frontage. Where there are the remnants of defences these are in more or less the same condition as Sept 2007 CEUK previously observed. Access to the beach has been suspended by a fence along the entire length of the cliff top. See supplementary report (Coastal Engineering, October 2007)

Little obvious change in condition of beach or remnants of gabion defences. Mar 2008 CEUK There has been some further erosion of the unprotected cliff, with some recent local slumping observed [3010118]. Deterioration in condition of central gabions and general unstable nature of cliff preventing access to foreshore. New views recorded from along cliff edge. In May 2009 CEUK addition there has been some further erosion of the artificial cliff. Erosion not currently threatening integrity of the harbour wall due to relatively high beach level applying here [5180094] Some further slight erosion of the cliff face. Further collapse of gabions around July 2010 CEUK old access point in centre of frontage. Due to access limitations not possible to obtain views at south end of frontage. Gabions and cliff face continuing to collapse. Full inspection not possible due to Capita access restrictions for safety. Feb 2011 Symonds Continue monitoring and inspections as recommended in previous inspection report Gabions and cliff face continuing to collapse. Full inspection not possible due to Capita Feb 2012 access restrictions for safety. Symonds Continue monitoring and inspections annually. Erosion of the cliff face and collapse of the gabion baskets is continuing. Access Sept 2012 CEUK onto the beach is restricted. Access to frontage restricted due to erosion and poor condition of structures. Condition observed from Whitehaven harbour south breakwater. Oct 2013 CEUK Some localised slumping of the cliff face has occurred but there does not appear to have been any further erosion where the cliff interfaces with the Pier. Gabion protection further along remains as previous i.e. failed. Access to frontage remains restricted. Further erosion of slag cliff frontage has Oct 2014 CEUK taken place. Views of frontage recorded from South Pier structure. Comparison of views Oct 2015 CEUK suggests no further erosion of slag cliff has taken place since last inspection.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 28 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Less fines visible on foreshore. There has been some further erosion of the slag cliff which has exposed a circular tower [115, 116], which is understood to be part July 2016 CEUK of the former mine workings. Also some localised slumping has occurred near the Pier wall [120]. Little change in the corner at the interface of the slag cliff with the Pier wall.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) Interface of south breakwater and CBC038 113-121 south shore defences Interface of south breakwater and CBC038a 123 124 south shore defences

Frame CBC_2016_2_113

Frame CBC_2016_2_115 Frame CBC_2016_2_116

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 29 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_118 Frame CBC_2016_2_124

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Visual inspection and beach monitoring and control of access/movement of fencing, as recession continues.

Previously concern was expressed regarding the impact of on-going cliff recession on the integrity of the Pier wall. The cliff is man-made and it clearly post-dates the Pier wall, as the wall is continuing to be exposed. Visually the wall section that is being exposed appears to be the same as that in the outer sections, which is reasonable given that the cliff area is effectively reclaimed land, however this section is less exposed due to the higher beach levels applying. Following the winter storms of 2013-14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2YwjQKH4E) Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners commissioned a small feasibility study (Haskoning BV, April 2014) into the options for maintaining the integrity of the pier wall and subsequently Copeland BC have let a more detailed study as there is now of less than 20 metres between the of cliff and the terminal end of the wall. The results of this study are should inform on-going management decisions.

The SMP2 policy is “No Active Intervention” for all three epochs but allowing for intervention to safeguard the integrity of the harbour arm, as necessary. The above management approach accords with this.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at three locations (WHV01-03), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009 and has been carried out minimum annually since (apart from 2012).

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of frontage on a minimum annual frequency; and  Collection of beach survey data, as above.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 30 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.7 DISUSED MINE AT ARROWTHWAITE Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: NA Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 296310E 516460N Finish Coordinate: 296300E 516360N Length: 100 metres Responsibility: Copeland BC CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7933 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11e/PU1.2

HAT Level: 4.7m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 12.00m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: No data Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle with boulders – some rock outcrops Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Stone (worked) Defence Description: Masonry Wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II)

Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 8 3 Fl Sea wall Masonry - - - 3 8 4 C Sea wall Masonry - - - 3 8 Residual life 10-20 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 18 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 31 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by July 2001 No inspection carried out The majority of the wall is in reasonable condition for its age (> 120 years). Lower crest at northern end supplemented by gabions, which are damaged. The foreshore is mobile across the whole of this frontage and vulnerable to Sept 2002 CECS movement and draw-down during storms. Existing unprotected soft shoreline is being eroded providing feed to the beaches, most of which due to its fineness is probably being lost offshore. April 2003 CECS No significant change identified June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change observed No inspection carried out due to safety issues associated with access at time of Jan 2005 CEUK inspection. Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed Sept 2007 CEUK No inspection carried out due to safety issues associated with access [9040081]. No obvious change in condition of foreshore or structure. Damaged areas Mar 2008 CEUK [3010135], as previously observed. Some slippage of coastal slope on south side [3010134]. Repair works to exposed gabion end of wall at northern end have been carried out and new fencing and footpath constructed along crest. New access path from cliff May 2009 CEUK top has been constructed but there is on-going slippage from above taking place that is affecting the integrity of the path. No obvious change to the overall condition of the structure. Fencing along the crest at the southern end has been damaged/removed. The support to the gabion July 2010 CEUK crest section is dubious with voids under the concrete slab and, noticeably a large section of missing blockwork under the right hand corner, which appears vulnerable to damage during storms. Erosion of cliff to south continuing. Capita No change from 2010 inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended in previous inspection report. Due to unstable cliff faces the access footpath was closed and the defence was Capita Feb 2012 not inspected this time. Photos above are from the 2011 inspection. Continue Symonds monitoring and inspections annually, if access is possible. Sept 2012 CEUK Due to access restrictions no inspection was carried out for this section. Oct 2013 CEUK Due to access restrictions no inspection was carried out for this section again. Oct 2014 CEUK Due to access restrictions no inspection was carried out for this section again. Oct 2015 CEUK Due to access restrictions no inspection was carried out for this section again. July 2016 CEUK Due to access restrictions no inspection was carried out for this section again.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) No photos taken – July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 32 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Past maintenance works to sea wall are understood to have been carried out by the Whitehaven Coast Project. Copeland BC is responsible for maintenance subject to technical feasibility and affordability (as per SMP), but due to cliff instability the area is not accessible.

Accordingly, with the advancements in technology it would be suggested that a drone survey to provide both a grid of levels and detailed photos would most appropriately be employed for this.

The SMP2 policy is “Hold the Line” in the short to medium term providing it can be justified and “No Active Intervention” thereafter. Achieving this policy is reliant on the defences continuing to function and the availability of funding to sustain them. The estimated residual life expectancy (2011) was considered sufficient to meet these requirements.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency; and  Use of LiDAR data to examine beach changes over a wider area.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 33 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.8 ST BEES Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 12:40-12:55 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 295900E 511840N Finish Coordinate: 296080E 511680N Length: 320 metres Responsibility: Copeland BC CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7932 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU6.2

HAT Level: 4.8m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.6m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 6.59-6.64m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: <5.0m ODN Relative Foreshore Level: Medium

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Concrete (insitu) Defence Description: Concrete sea wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CS Foreshore Sand - - - 2 2 2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Sea wall Concrete - - - 2 8 4 B Sea wall Concrete - - - 2 8 5 Fl Sea wall Concrete 2 6 6 C Sea wall Concrete 2 6 7 Groynes Timber 4 4 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 2 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 18 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 34 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The sea wall structure is in generally good condition and reasonably well protected by the shingle beach, sections of which are artificially managed by recycling shingle that is thrown up onto the promenade, back onto the beach. The July 2001 CECS foreshore is mobile across the whole of this frontage and vulnerable to movement and draw-down during storms. Beach movement is controlled to a degree by the timber groyne field although there is little evidence of longshore drift. Sept 2002 CECS Little change observed from previous inspection Groyne maintenance commenced but not completed. Localised recycling of April 2003 CECS shingle from promenade back onto beach, south of slipway. Groyne maintenance mostly completed. Localised movement of shingle at north June 2004 CEUK end Movement of beach between groynes but overall level of protection maintained. Jan 2005 CEUK Primary defences overtopped causing shingle to be thrown up onto promenade. Further gaps in groyne boards observed – require replacing. No significant change in condition – some beach movement but general level of Sept 2005 CEUK protection maintained Little change in the overall condition of the defences and the beach, apart from piling supporting promenade return along Rottington Beck. This is badly corroded towards the seaward end and fill from beneath the promenade slabbing has been drawn out leaving voids under the slabbing. Although not in immediate danger of Sept 2007 CEUK collapse it would be recommended that this end return section of the promenade is shut off from public access. Surface of the slipway access in the centre of the frontage is badly abraded such that steel reinforcement is exposed. Potential H&S risk. (See supplementary report (Coastal Engineering, October 2007). No change to the condition of the sea wall. On-going beach movement observed but upper beach volumes appear reasonably constant, although evidence of lowering of toe of shingle. Remedial works to timber groynes are still outstanding. Remedial works to end return, as identified in supplementary report (October Mar 2008 CEUK 2007) not yet carried out and area has not been cordoned off to public access as suggested. Minor deterioration in condition of slipway with reinforcing bar still exposed (on- going H&S Risk) Flows in Rottington Beck have cleared channel in shingle exposing full length of return piling and caused some local collapse of channel edge protection to bank on north side downstream of bridge [5180122]. There appears to have been some May 2009 CEUK further minor deterioration in damaged piling. Also movement of the shingle has undermined groyne planking at its landward end [5180133]. No change in condition of sea wall Shingle has been piled up across outlet to Rottington Beck, blocking flows. Remedial works to piling at return have not been carried out but there has been no obvious deterioration in condition, notwithstanding that more material could have been washed out from under the promenade. Access to this area is still unrestricted and this area remains a potential safety issue. July 2010 CEUK No overall change in condition of the sea wall and promenade. Spalled areas to promenade have been repaired.

Remedial works to groynes are still to be completed with some planks missing and some of piles showing excessive loss of section due to abrasion by shingle. A scheme is in progress to provide concrete protection to the piling at the northern end of the Promenade. An assessment of the timber groynes has been Capita Feb 2011 made (Capita Symonds, 2011) with a recommendation to allow deterioration to Symonds continue while only carrying out maintenance work required to ensure public safety. This allows time to determine whether the groynes are necessary and full

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 35 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

refurbishment can be delayed until that time, if required.

Inspection and monitoring should continue as recommended in the previous inspection report. A scheme is in progress to provide concrete protection to the piling at the northern end of the Promenade. An assessment of the timber groynes has been made (Capita Symonds, 2011) with a recommendation to allow deterioration to continue while only carrying out maintenance work required to ensure public Capita Feb 2012 safety. This allows time to determine whether the groynes are necessary and full Symonds refurbishment can be delayed until that time, if required. There has generally been little change since 2011, with some minor deterioration of the groynes.

Inspection and monitoring should continue annually. The scheme mentioned in the previous report has begun by providing a concrete face to the pilling and building a concrete channel with a low concrete wall to provide a new channel for the Rottington Beck. Frame 185 shows that water is currently flowing on both sides of the new concrete wall, however it is planned that the depression on the left of the wall will be filled when suitable material is available. During the construction works storm conditions lead to the bridge over the beck being washed away. Public access across the northern end of the promenade has been restricted.

The concrete pile facing and channel section appear to have been successfully installed but the diversion of the beck during this operation allied with heavy rainfall during the construction period have, it is understood, combined to cause scour under parts of the channel section, notably at the downstream end as well as erosion around the footbridge piers causing its collapse and erosion of the north bank of the Beck. It should be noted that the erosion beneath the channel section could not be verified during the inspection due to water levels in the Beck.

Sept 2012 CEUK Comparison of the current condition with the construction drawing shows that there is a short section of self standing wall still to be constructed at the upstream end of the channel as well as the backfilling on the north side of the channel, where the Beck was diverted to whilst the channel sections were constructed.

It is also noted that the upstream end of the new artificial channel does not extend up to the upstream end of the existing piled wall but finishes approximately two pile pans from the old footbridge abutment. Tie-ing in to the abutment would have been more appropriate.

Across the rest of this section conditions are generally unchanged, with some planks still missing from the groynes. At the time of the inspection maintenance was being carried on the groynes in the next section (Seacote Hotel St Bees 2). This work needs to continue across this frontage, particularly to the last groyne [193]. Some further localised cracking and spalling were also identified to promenade slabbing [197,198].

A separate addendum relating to the Works in Rottington Beck is provided below. No significant change in the condition of the primary defences across this frontage. Remedial works to groynes structures across this section remain outstanding.

No significant further work has been carried out in respect of the channel works in Oct 2013 CEUK Rottington Beck, apart from the following:

 most of the stone facing attached to the piling at the upstream end has been washed away with the residual facing removed  a new bridge has been constructed over the beck towards the upstream end

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 36 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

 there has been backfilling of the land on the north side of the concrete channel, mostly with shingle but also rubble at the upstream end. At the time of the inspection, despite recent heavy rainfall preceding the inspection the Beck flows were being maintained in the channel and not scouring out the north bank as observed last year.

It is understood that Consultants have been engaged to carry out some additional remedial works to address the outstanding design and other issues identified in the 2012 addendum. Generally little overall change in conditions applying to the primary defences with defects as previously advised [243, 244]. Some remedial works have been carried out to timber groynes structures but the work is not complete. The marker on the groyne at the northern end has been damaged [259].

The channel works at Rottington Beck are understood to be complete, with flows concentrated within the channel, although whilst the area outside the channel has been backfilled with shingle it potentially remains vulnerable to disruption should Oct 2014 CEUK channel flows exceed the capacity of the channel. The outer shingle bank as previously now blocks the discharge [257] with flows percolating through it.

Some shrinkage cracks were observed on the wall facing [255] and there are some cracks visible in the promenade slabbing behind the beck wall [250]. The section underneath was vulnerable to wash out prior to the works being carried out but was grouted up as part of the works. It is thought this is unlikely to be due to major settlement but may be a localised reaction if the grouting didn’t fill all the voids. This should be monitored for any significant change. No change in conditions applying in Rottington Beck and surrounding area [231, 233-241], apart from remedial works to re-face section of wall at upstream end of wall return [238]. Marker at seaward end of northern most groyne has been Oct 2015 CEUK reinstated [236].

Elsewhere defects identified previously [226, 227] remain. No overall change in conditions applying with the majority of defects previously identified still outstanding. The following specifics were noted:

 Repairs to slipway to seal exposed steel reinforcement carried out [095];  Facing works to sea wall return in Rottington Beck completed and at the time July 2016 CEUK of the inspection, armour stone was being placed in front of the wall and at the edge of the concrete channel to prevent the beck from outflanking the concrete channel [101, 102]; and  Further build up of shingle where beck debouches onto the foreshore [105- 108].

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC049 Bridge over Rottington Beck 101 102 103 104 CBC050 North side of Rottington Beck (1) 105 CBC051 North side of Rottington Beck (2) 106 107 108 CBC052 North end of promenade 096 097 098 099 100 CBC053 Slipway through promenade 093 094 095 CBC054 Damage to promenade 092 CBC055 Damage to edge of promenade 091 CBC055a Defects on promenade 090 Beach access part way along CBC056 088 089 promenade CBC057 South end of promenade/Access Steps 086

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 37 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_088 Frame CBC_2016_2_092

Frame CBC_2016_2_095 Frame CBC_2013_1_097

Frame CBC_2016_2_101 Frame CBC_2016_2_104

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 38 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_108

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS As mentioned previously a number of groyne planks on timber groynes are missing and need replacing and there are minor defects to the promenade slabbing, which require on-going monitoring.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold the Line” in all three epochs. If the Authority and the hotel landowners wish to maintain their assets at St Bees, in accordance with the SMP2 policy, they will have to maintain and enhance the present structures with particular consideration given to preventing erosion of the natural cliff frontage to the south and potential outflanking of these defences. On-going liaison with hotel owners required with regard to defence responsibility/on-going management.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at seven locations (STB07-13), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009 and is continuing on a minimum annual basis.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 39 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.9 SEACOTE HOTEL ST BEES 2 Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 12:25-12:40 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 296080E 511680N Finish Coordinate: 296160E 511640N Length: 80 metres Responsibility: Front wall & groynes: Copeland BC Revetment & Cliff: Private (Seacote Hotel) CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7931 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU6.2

HAT Level: 4.8m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.6m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 6.64m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: <5.0m ODN Relative Foreshore Level: Medium

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Concrete (insitu) Defence Description: Concrete sea wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CS Foreshore Sand - - - 2 2 2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Sea wall Concrete - - - 3 8 4 C Sea wall Concrete - - - 3 8 5 Groynes Timber 4 4 6 Fl Revetment Rock Armour 2 6 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 27 Assessment Rating: Medium

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 40 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Change from previous inspection: Condition changed from Fair/Poor to Fair and score modified from 27-36 to 27. Risk rating remains medium

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The sea wall structure is in generally good condition and well protected by the shingle beach although erosion of the cliff behind indicates that the crest level of the masonry revetment has been set too low for the exposure conditions applying. The top of the cliff is less than 5 metres from the edge of the cafeteria and significant events could cause further cliff erosion, which would threaten the July 2001 CECS integrity of the building.

The foreshore is mobile across the whole of this frontage and vulnerable to movement and draw-down during storms. Beach movement is controlled to a degree by the timber groyne field although there is little evidence of longshore drift. Beach movement observed but overall volumes reasonably maintained. Further Sept 2002 CECS erosion of cliff behind defences. Little change to beach and defence condition, although there has been some artificial recycling and beach management of material south of the slipway in April 2003 CECS length 210/7932, with material thrown up onto the promenade during storms replaced onto the beach and levels pushed up to the crest of the promenade wall. There appears to have been some minor erosion of the cliff toe/face. June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change from last inspection Movement of beach between groynes but overall level of protection maintained. Jan 2005 CEUK Primary defences overtopped causing further slight erosion of rear cliff face. Wind damage to roof of café. Sept 2005 CEUK No obvious change in conditions applying. No significant change in overall condition of wall and cliff – new crack to edge Sept 2007 CEUK beam identified. No change in condition of defences or cliff behind. Risk to infrastructure remains Mar 2008 CEUK as previously identified. No significant change in the cliff observed with risk to cliff top café remaining. May 2009 CEUK Slight deterioration in condition of joints to wall – spalling etc and localised areas of rear stone revetment require re-pointing. No overall change in structure condition. Some of minor defects identified have been repaired. Pointing to concrete revetment facing outstanding [18_035]. July 2010 CEUK No obvious change in condition of cliff. Remedial works to groynes are still to be completed with some planks missing and some of piles showing excessive loss of section due to abrasion by shingle. No change from previous inspection. As noted in the previous inspection Copeland BC and the Hotel owners need to work together if they wish to maintain the Capita Feb 2011 defences along this frontage as continuing erosion of the cliffs to the south will Symonds lead to outflanking of the defences. Continue inspections and monitoring as recommended in the previous report. No change from previous inspection. Cracks noted in concrete at joints (see accompanying photos on CD-ROM). As noted in the previous inspection Copeland Capita BC and the Hotel owners need to work together if they wish to maintain the Feb 2012 Symonds defences along this frontage as continuing erosion of the cliffs to the south will lead to outflanking of the defences. Continue inspections and monitoring annually.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 41 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Although some crack/spall defects have been some defects remain in the sea wall and upper surfacing. No significant noticed in eroded cliff face.

Sept 2012 CEUK During the time of the inspection maintenance work was being carried out to replace missing planks in the timber groynes as recommended in previous reports. This to be completed. Oct 2013 CEUK No change. Conditions as recorded last year. Groyne maintenance completed. Overtopping of the primary defences during the winter 2013/14 storms caused further erosion of the rear clay cliff and another event of similar magnitude could Oct 2014 CEUK potentially impact on the cliff top shop/café. Otherwise conditions and defects remain as previously identified. No change in conditions observed. Previously identified defects remain. There has Oct 2015 CEUK been no further erosion of the clay cliff which remains vulnerable. Remedial works to the toe of the cliff below the café have been carried out with blocks of sandstone randomly placed to the toe of the cliff [082]. No geotextile was observed between the cliff face and the rocks so whilst the works carried out will reduce the potential for further washout of the cliff, there is a residual risk that waves and tidal waters could penetrate through and continue to destabilise the cliffs. July 2016 CEUK

Copeland BC were not consulted about placement of rock armour but the EA were (D. Bechelli, e-mail to CEUK 14/09/16).

Otherwise defects to the concrete wall and masonry facing identified previously remain and have not deteriorated.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC057 South end of promenade / access Steps 082 083 084 085 082 CBC058 Top of access steps to promenade 087 CBC060 Damage to edge of private wall (1) 079 080 CBC060a Crack in front wall 078 CBC061 Damage to edge of private wall (2) 077 CBC062 Boundary of wall with rock protection 071 072 073 075 076

Frame CBC_2016_2_075 Frame CBC_2016_2_085

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 42 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_077 Frame CBC_2016_2_079

Frame CBC_2016_2_082

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 43 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold the Line” in all three epochs.

Works have been carried out to reduce the risk of erosion of the cliff directly below the café (2016). On-going monitoring will be required to determine if extension of these works is going to be provided to the currently unprotected section immediately to the south. If so this would infringe on the St Bees Head SSSI and consent from Natural England as well as Copeland BC would be required.

Notwithstanding the works above, it would be appropriate for continued liaison between the landowner and Copeland BC, such that any further works that may be required in the future are appropriately tied-in with the Authority’s coastal defence management across the adjacent sections of frontage (see 210/7932, ref section 3.8).

Actions will also be required to ensure that outflanking of the defences does not take place as a result of the policy of “No Active Intervention” in the adjacent frontage to the south (see 210/7930, ref section 3.10).

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 44 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.10 SEACOTE HOTEL ST BEES 1 Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 12:20-12:25 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 296200E 511580N Finish Coordinate: 296240E 511560N Length: 40 metres Responsibility: Private (Seacote Hotel) CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7930 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU6.1

HAT Level: 4.8m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.1m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 7.62-7.69m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: <5.0m ODN Relative Foreshore Level: Medium

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Linear Rock revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CS Foreshore Sand - - - 2 2 2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Revetment Rock Armour - - - 3 8 4 C Revetment Rock Armour - - - 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 12-27 Assessment Rating: Low-Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 45 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The defences are in good condition, although erosion of the cliff behind indicates that the crest level has been set too low for the exposure conditions applying. July 2001 CECS The foreshore is mobile across the whole of this frontage and vulnerable to movement and draw-down during storms. Slight lowering of beach but otherwise little change observed from previous Sept 2002 CECS inspection Little change in beach defence conditions but large areas of cliff face erosion April 2003 CECS matting exposed. This is probably as a result of vegetation condition ahead of the growing season rather than erosion of the face. No significant change from last inspection. Beach levels appear slightly higher June 2004 CEUK along toe of structure. Drawdown of beach in front of structure but no change in structure condition. Jan 2005 CEUK Structure does however appear to have been overtopped causing further erosion of cliff behind, particularly at northern end. Sept 2005 CEUK No obvious change in condition No obvious change in condition – more shingle washed up through armour. Sept 2007 CEUK Shingle level in front of cliff to south higher [9040110]. Mar 2008 CEUK No obvious change in condition observed. May 2009 CEUK No obvious change in condition observed. Significant movement of shingle into and over armour. No obvious change in cliff July 2010 CEUK condition No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections as Capita recommended in the previous inspection report. If erosion is allowed to continue, Feb 2011 Symonds as per the SMP2 policy of No Active Intervention then eventually work will be required to avoid outflanking of defences to the north. No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections Capita annually. If erosion is allowed to continue, as per the SMP2 policy of No Active Feb 2012 Symonds Intervention then eventually work will be required to avoid outflanking of defences to the north. No obvious change in condition from previous inspection and no evidence of Sept 2012 CEUK further erosion of cliff behind. Local build up of shingle along this section covering top end of groyne at interface Oct 2013 CEUK with frontage to north [199]. Otherwise no change in conditions applying. As with the section immediately to the north there has been overtopping of the Oct 2014 CEUK rock armour since the last inspection and erosion of the boulder clay cliff to the rear and the beginnings of outflanking at the southern terminal end [226]. No further erosion of cliff face has taken place and change in condition of Oct 2015 CEUK defences. July 2016 CEUK No further erosion or change in structure condition.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC062 Boundary of wall with rock protection 072 074 CBC063 South end of armour toe cliff protection 068 069

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 46 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_068 Frame CBC_2016_2_074

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS No immediate maintenance required.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “No Active Intervention” in all three epochs.

If this policy is implemented there will, in time, need to be actions taken to avoid outflanking of the defences to the north for which the Policy is “Hold the Line”.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 47 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.11 ST BEES GOLF COURSE Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 11:50-12:20 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 296240E 511560N Finish Coordinate: 296900E 510850N Length: 970 metres Responsibility: Private (St Bees Golf Club) CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7929 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU6.1

HAT Level: 4.8m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6-7m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 6.49-7.11m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Natural Cliff Revetment Type: Other (Clay cliff) Defence Description: Clay cliff frontage Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB Foreshore Sand - - - 2 2 2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Cliff Clay - - - 3 8 4 C Cliff Clay - - - 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 12 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 48 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by July 2001 CECS View of frontage from terminal ends only. Some beach movement observed but no significant change from previous Sept 2002 CECS inspection April 2003 CECS No significant change identified June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change from last inspection Jan 2005 CEUK Some erosion and slippage of cliff face observed First inspection of full frontage. Extremities appear to contain more boulders and cobbles within matrix with central section which has more of a sand/clay mixture. Cliffs generally higher in overall elevation in the centre of the frontage (est. 15-20 Sept 2005 CEUK metres above beach) but reducing towards either end. Some slippage in face observed but this may be more due to run-off than erosion at toe Sept 2007 CEUK Generally no significant change in condition but some localised slumping observed Movement of upper beach shingle and further localised slumping of the cliff (run- Mar 2008 CEUK off induced) observed but little overall change in frontage condition. Slumping and erosion of cliff continuing induced by combination of wave/tide May 2009 CEUK action and run off. July 2010 CEUK Some further erosion and slumping of the cliff observed. Capita Continue monitoring and inspections as recommended in the previous inspection Feb 2011 Symonds report. Capita Overall no change from 2011, erosion of cliffs is ongoing. Continue monitoring and Feb 2012 Symonds inspections annually. Sept 2012 CEUK Cliffs continue to be unstable in places, with some evidence of slumping. Walk over whole length carried out. The cliffs are variable in profile with the sections closer to vertical at greater risk of undercutting due to tidal action. A good shingle beach is maintained across this length. Some evidence of slumping Oct 2013 CEUK of cliffs evident [189, 194] but this appears to be more likely rainfall rather induced rather than due to toe erosion. No obvious recession of cliff face observed. Full walk over carried out. 2013/14 winter storms caused erosion of the cliff face Oct 2014 CEUK in places. Some disruption to cliff top access at southern end. Some further slumping of cliff face primarily thought to be run-off induced rather Oct 2015 CEUK than due to undercutting of the toe. Further slippage of sections of the cliff face observed [60, 67], otherwise no July 2016 CEUK change in conditions applying. More surficial sand fines observed in lower parts of upper, largely shingle, beach across southern half of frontage.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC063 South end of armour toe cliff protection 069 070 CBC063a Part way along toe of golf club cliffs (1) 067 CBC063b Part way along toe of golf club cliffs (2) 066 CBC064 Part way along toe of golf club cliffs (3) 063 064 065 CBC065 Part way along toe of golf club cliffs (4) 062 CBC066 Part way along toe of golf club cliffs (5) 060 061 CBC067 Part way along toe of golf club cliffs (6) 058 059 CBC068 South end of golf club cliffs 056 057

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 49 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_060

Frame CBC_2016_2_061

Frame CBC_2016_2_066 Frame CBC_2016_2_067

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 50 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Private frontage - No immediate management actions identified.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “No Active Intervention” in all three epochs. Current management accords with this policy.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at four locations (STB05, 05A, 06 & 06A), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 51 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.12 SEAMILL (NORTH OF ANCIENT FISHGARTH) Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 11:40-11:50 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 296900E 510850N Finish Coordinate: 297010E 510680N Length: 200 metres Responsibility: St Bees Parish Council CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7928 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.7

HAT Level: 4.9m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 7.0m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 4.76-5.88m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Linear Gabion and Rock revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB - - - - - 2 2 2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Revetment Rock Armour - - - 3/4 8 4 C Revetment Rock Armour - - - 3/4 8 Residual life 10-20 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 27-36 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 52 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by July 2001 No inspection carried out Sept 2002 No inspection carried out Initial inspection at Council’s request.

The gabion defences are generally in poor condition although sections have been retained within the new armour structure. On the north side of the beck the defences have failed and provide no defence function. A small section of the April 2003 CECS Network Rail defences to the south were reinforced with stone in 2002 (210/7927). The precise boundary between responsibilities for defences is unclear and requires clarification.

The foreshore is mobile across the whole of this frontage and vulnerable to movement and draw-down during storms. No noticeable change, apart from discharge from Pow Beck was temporarily June 2004 CEUK culverted at the time of the inspection, to allow construction work Overtopping of defences has occurred during the storm. Across the car park section water has run up the slipway and caused disturbance of the unbound surface behind the defences (1180066). Elsewhere the defences have performed adequately. Jan 2005 CEUK Across the section of frontage in front of the properties the defences appear to have been overtopped but not breached, causing erosion of the land behind and disruption of utility services (1180080, 1180082). Frontage is vulnerable to further storms this winter No obvious change in conditions applying. Local reinstatement of storm damage at Sept 2005 CEUK top of slipway otherwise no action taken Sept 2007 CEUK No obvious change in conditions applying. Beck flowing fuller at time of inspection due to heavy rainfall on day before. Mar 2008 CEUK Otherwise no noticeable change in conditions applying Beck flowing full again following heavy overnight rain. No real change along May 2009 CEUK frontage in front of car park. Access along crest of defences in front of houses now impassable – alternative access constructed behind properties. Remains of gabions on north side of Pow Beck have been removed, otherwise no July 2010 CEUK obvious change in condition of defences. Gabions remain vulnerable to overtopping/damage Still no clarification over boundaries and responsibilities of defences between Copeland BC/Private and Network Rail and review of protection levels to be carried Capita Feb 2011 out to meet SMP2 hold the line policy. Defences classified as 4 for these reasons. Symonds Continue inspection and monitoring as recommended in previous inspection report. To clarify maintenance responsibilities and produce options for future management of the Sea Mill and Ancient Fishgarth defences Capita Symonds Capita Feb 2012 produced a report for Copeland BC in 2011. Discussions are ongoing between Symonds Network Rail and Copeland BC over future maintenance/upgrading of defences. Continue inspection and monitoring annually. Generally there has been no change in the condition of the defences from those observed previously. Locally undermining of gabions adjacent to Pow Beck bridge Sept 2012 CEUK [180]. No change at boundary with NR Ancient Fishgarth defences [174] but local undermining not addressed. Oct 2013 CEUK No change in condition observed. Defects remain as previously advised. Longshore drift of shingle has pushed beck discharge northerly and away from northern terminal end of defences [214]. Defences in front of car park locally disrupted by winter storms. Overtopping of Oct 2014 CEUK armour/gabions in front of houses caused erosion of soft deposits behind and undermining of manhole at southern end [204, 206]. A local member of the Parish Council reported that some rock armour had been

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 53 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

placed by Network Rail, when working in the area and using car park, but this was understood to relate to historical placing of rock armour. Discharge from Pow Beck pushed further northwards due to longshore movement of upper beach shingle [195], otherwise no worsening of defence conditions. Oct 2015 CEUK Defence in front of properties [186, 188-190, 193] requires attention at the earliest if risk of further damage to properties is to be reduced. No change in condition of defences or general conditions applying. Discharge of Pow Beck has been forced slightly southerly by a local drift reversal [52] and the July 2016 CEUK footbridge over the Beck has been cordoned off (presumably for H&S reasons) due to the step down onto the shingle [54].

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC068 South end of golf club cliffs 055 CBC069 Bridge over Pow Beck 052 053 054 CBC070 Slipway at north end of Seamill defences 048 049 CBC071 South end of car park at Seamill 050 051 Beach and defences in front of CBC072 047 properties at Seamill South end of property defences/start of CBC073 041 042 044 045 046 NR wall

Frame CBC_2016_2_046 Frame CBC_2016_2_050

Frame CBC_2016_2_051 Frame CBC_2016_2_054

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 54 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Further to recommendations in previous reports, Copeland BC commissioned Capita Symonds to prepare a report, to aid the process of planning investment in future coastal defence improvements, across this section and the adjacent Ancient Fishgarth frontage to the south, to clarify defence ownership and maintenance responsibility and investigate the long term effectiveness of the defences as well as exploring a number of options for future management.

The report (Capita, May 2012) included liaison with Network Rail to confirm which defences they were responsible for and identified that the preferred approach would be for defences to be upgraded as and when necessary to extend their lifespan across both frontages. Network Rail have verbally agreed to work with Copeland BC with the latter leading and potentially able to obtain Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding (FDGiA), subject to a successful Medium Term Plan (MTP) bid to the Environment Agency. At present a scheme has a low priority score and would require contributions from other parties, specifically Network Rail, for a scheme to be successfully promoted.

Such an approach is in accordance with the SMP2 Policy’s of:

 “Hold the Line” in all three epochs (0-20; 20-50 and 50-100 years) at Seamill, and  “No Active Intervention” in all three epochs (0-20; 20-50 and 50-100 years) but allowing for intervention work to manage risk to the railway, at Ancient Fishgarth.

On-going data collection/monitoring requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out; and  Liaison between Copeland BC, Network Rail and Property Owners.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 55 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.13 ANCIENT FISHGARTH Survey Details

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 11:15-11:40 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 297010E 510680N Finish Coordinate: 297120E 510330N Length: 400 metres Responsibility: Network Rail CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7927 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.6

HAT Level: 4.9m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 9.7m ODN Beach Stability: No data Foreshore Toe Level: 5.41-7.39m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Generally cobbles and boulders with some fines Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Concrete (in-situ) Defence Description: Clay cliff with miscellaneous toe/slope protection Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Sea wall Concrete - - - 3/4 8 4 C Sea wall Concrete - - - 3/4 8 Residual life 10-20 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT

Score: 30-40 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 56 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by July 2001 No inspection carried out Inspection on behalf of Network Rail (JBA, 2002). No backshore defences over most of promontory but cliff vulnerable to on-going erosion and setback. Defences on north side are largely informal and ad-hoc and whilst they prevent Nov 2001 CECS erosion to a degree they are vulnerable to terminal erosion and, in places, overtopping causing erosion and slippage of the cliff behind. Foreshore appears to be generally stable but low in relation to water levels applying. Sept 2002 CECS No inspection April 2003 CECS No inspection June 2004 CEUK No inspection Jan 2005 CEUK No inspection Additional armour stone has been placed in front of the stepped concrete sea wall Sept 2005 CEUK section with some smaller quarried stone on exposed upper sections of the cliff. No other significant change or alteration in beach conditions Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Mar 2008 CEUK Tie-in with Seamill defences only examined. No significant change observed. Whole frontage inspected but limited photos recorded due to memory card issues. May 2009 CEUK No significant changes observed. Localised undermining of wall at boundary with Seamill defences observed, July 2010 CEUK otherwise no change in conditions. Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended in previous report. To clarify maintenance responsibilities and produce options for future management of the Sea Mill and Ancient Fishgarth defences Capita Symonds Capita Feb 2012 produced a report for Copeland BC in 2011. Discussions are ongoing between Symonds Network Rail and Copeland BC over future maintenance/upgrading of defences. Continue monitoring and inspections annually. Undermining of wall at boundary with Seamill defences remains, but has not worsened. Elsewhere on the frontage there is no change in conditions but beach Sept 2012 CEUK levels have dropped towards the southern end. Generally no change in unprotected cliff frontage No changes in condition of artificial defences evident. Marginally less vegetation Oct 2013 CEUK on the southerly flank of the cliff frontage [164] suggesting that some local erosion of the cliff face has occurred. Also some localised slumping [163]. Generally no change in condition of artificial defences, apart from some localised disruption at boundary with property defences to north [207]. Oct 2014 CEUK Erosion of clay platform and lower parts of cliff face apparent to natural cliff face [199]. Loss of mobile sediment from in front of sloping/stepped masonry in centre of frontage, exposing clay foundation to defences [180-181] with increased potential for undermining if material does not return. Such conditions have not previously been observed. Oct 2015 CEUK Also increased risk of undermining of stepped concrete at northerly boundary with Seamill defences [188]. Some erosion of cliff face at south end evident [176] but this thought to be primarily as a result of run-off rather than undercutting of the toe due to wave erosion. No change in structure condition but beach levels have returned along toe of defences along toe with previously exposed clay covered up (transient behaviour) July 2016 CEUK [33-38]. Some localised slippage has occurred to the cliff at Ancient Fishgarth [29- 31].

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***)

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 57 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

CBC073 South end of property defences/start of NR wall 043 044 CBC074 South end of repaired section of NR defences 039 040 CBC075 Cliff above NR defences 038 CBC075a Midpoint of NR defences 034 035 036 037 CBC076 S end of NR defences to cliff 032 033 CBC077 Cliff at Ancient Fishgarth 029 030 031

Frame CBC_2016_2_031

Frame CBC_2016_2_033 Frame CBC_2016_2_035

Frame CBC_2016_2_043 Frame CBC_2016_2_044

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 58 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Further to recommendations in previous reports, Copeland BC commissioned Capita Symonds to prepare a report, to aid the process of planning investment in future coastal defence improvements, across this section and the adjacent Seamill frontage to the north, to clarify defence ownership and maintenance responsibility and investigate the long term effectiveness of the defences, as well as exploring a number of options for future management.

The report (Capita, May 2012) included liaison with Network Rail to confirm which defences they were responsible for and identified that the preferred approach would be for defences to be upgraded as and when necessary to extend their lifespan across both frontages. This would require co-operation between Copeland BC and Network Rail, with both contributing to the cost of any works that are carried out. Copeland BC could potentially obtain Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding (FDGiA) but would require contributions from other parties, specifically Network Rail, for a scheme to be successfully promoted. There had been no progress on this in 2013 but further to the damage sustained due to the winter 2013/14 storms there is a greater urgency now to move things forward. Further discussions in this respect are recommended.

Such an approach is in accordance with the SMP2 Policy’s of:

Network Rail to be informed of exposure of foundation to defences.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at two location (STB02, DF13), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2006/08 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection/monitoring requirements:  Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out; and  Liaison between Copeland BC, Network Rail and Property Owners.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 59 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.14 NETHERTOWN TO ST BEES Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 18:15-18:45 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Date: 16th July 2016 Time: 10:00-11:50 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 16.07 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.8m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Mostly sunny with light clouds. Warm. Wind W Force 3-4.

Start Coordinate: 297120E 510330N Finish Coordinate: 298730E 507600N Length: 3170 metres Responsibility: Network Rail/ Private CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7926 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.5+5.6

HAT Level: 4.9m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 8-15m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 2.7-8.6m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Mixture of sand, shingle and cobbles with some rock (sandstone) outcrop Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Clay cliff with miscellaneous toe/slope protection Design Standard: Unknown

Structure Type(s) (ST) 1 Sand Beach 2 Shingle Beach 3 Cobble/Boulder Beach 4 Bedrock 5 Timber Groyne 5 Rock Groyne 6 Rock Breakwater 7 Vertical Sea Wall 9 Sloping Revetment 10 Linear Rock Revetment 11 Stepped Revetment 12 Timber Wall 13 Timber Breastwork 14 Quay Wall 15 Sheet Piling 16 Gabion Wall 17 Jetty 18 Slipway – Bound Surface 19 Slipway – Unbound Surface 20 Outfall 21 Dwarf Wall 22 Bound Access/Promenade 23 Unbound Access/ Promenade 24 Wave Return Wall 25 Sand Dune 26 Artificial Cliff/Made Ground 27 Earth Flood Bank 28 Clay Cliff

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB - Mud flat - - - - - 2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Revetment Various - - - 1-3 8 4 C Revetment Various - - - 1-3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 1-3 Data Quality 1

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 60 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 10-45 Assessment Rating: Low to High Change from previous inspection: No change

INSPECTION NOTES Date Inspected by Comments July 2001 No inspection carried out Inspection on behalf of Network Rail (JBA, 2002). The defences range in condition across the frontage from very good for the most recently constructed elements to poor/failing for older sections where material Nov 2001 CECS appears to have just been tipped along the toe to combat erosion. The foreshore profile and condition varies across the frontage but is generally healthy where there are no defences but less so where defences have been constructed. Sept 2002 CECS No inspection April 2003 CECS No inspection June 2004 CEUK No inspection Jan 2005 CEUK No inspection There has been very little change in condition across the frontage over the last four years. Network Rail have carried out some minor additional defence Sept 2005 CEUK provision – stone protection to slope above armour stone (NSB20-21). The southern most beach property has added some concrete facing protection to its foundations [9120165]. Otherwise no significant change observed. Some localised movement of the beach observed. Some deterioration in Sept 2007 CEUK condition of breakwater/lagoon structure south of Nethertown Station. Otherwise no obvious change. Section south of Nethertown station only inspected. Works to repair lagoon Mar 2008 CEUK structure and replace stone in progress, otherwise no change observed. Whole frontage inspected but limited photos recorded due to memory card issues. Some beach movement but no significant changes observed, apart from the following:  evidence of a chemical reaction along the toe of concrete revetment at the northern end of the frontage [5180184]  Additional tipping of hardcore to crest of bank in front of beach May 2009 CEUK residences north of Nethertown station [5180190]  Remedial works to Nethertown lagoon completed, although a couple of remaining defects were observed - missing overlay to original blockwork structure [5180204] & cracking of concrete overlay at southern end [5180208].  Signs of slippage in repaired embankment at southern end of embankment [5180214]. Full inspection carried out this year, although hampered by heavy rain. Generally little change in beach or defence conditions applying, although the following were specifically noted:  Provision of new slope protection works just south of isolated beach July 2010 CEUK property on the north side of Nethertown station house [18_125].  More bedrock exposed on north side of Nethertown station house  Property owners have tipped rubble along edge of bank / along crest of shingle in an attempt to combat erosion [18_115-116]. Various types of slope protection in front of railway line and responsibility of Feb 2011 Capita Symonds Network Rail. Recommendations are the same as the previous report. Continue monitoring and inspections as recommended in the previous report. Various types of slope protection in front of railway line and responsibility of Feb 2012 Capita Symonds Network Rail. Recommendations are the same as the previous report. Continue monitoring and inspections as recommended in the previous report.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 61 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Towards the northern end of this frontage a landslip occurred at the end of August, temporarily closing the railway. Since the landslip rock armour protection has been placed at the base of the cliff and on the slope below the railway line in an effort to prevent further slumping [152, 153 & 155]. Immediately south of the landslip protection some additional armour stone Sept 2012 CEUK appears to have been placed to the toe and covered over with soil and beach deposits [151]. No change across the Coulderton beach properties frontage apart from at the south end by the isolated property, where new stone facing was being placed to the seaward face of the railway embankment [138, 139]. Across the remainder of the frontage no changes were observed, although there are still some minor defects outstanding [e.g. 125] Whilst overall there has been little change in the condition of the existing defences, a number of changes/improvements were observed across this section of frontage, specifically (from north to south):

 Evidence of continued northerly low magnitude shingle drift in front of the concrete / rock defences at the north end [158]  Completion of remedial works to the embankment slope and the upper cliff, following slippage in 2012 [148-151]. The surficial beach sediments were coarser along this section compared to 2012 [152,3]  Application for planning permission to re-build a property on the currently vacant Seacrest bungalow plot at the south end of Coulderton beach Oct 2013 CEUK properties [138].  Completion of gabion/rock works to embankment facing between main properties and isolated property at south end of Coulderton frontage – (ref. Waypoint 94a) [134, 135]  The frontage between the last isolated property south of Coulderton and the Station house at Nethertown, which up until last year had been intermittently protected, is now protected with a rock armour revetment along its entire length with variable intermittent additional crest defences e.g. gabions – (ref. Waypoint 96-101) [125-133].  Fresh localised damage to face at north end of Nethertown lagoon [122]  Construction of new armour stone cliff toe defences on the north side of the Knoll [110, 112] Generally there has been little change in the condition of the defences across this section of frontage since the last inspection, although the following observations were made pursuant to the impacts of the winter2013/14 storms:

 Provision of additional new private defences along the crest of the shingle bank at Coulderton [176, 180];  New/Refurbished properties at Coulderton [179]; Oct 2014 CEUK  Stripped back upper section of gabion mattress to embankment behind armour stone between Nethertown and Coulderton [163];  Localised defects in existing lagoon structure at Nethertown [148, 154];  Significant upper beach longshore drift into the southern end of the frontage, from the frontage to the south with shingle material, moved along the lagoon frontage and northwards to beyond the Station house [146, 157,159]. Such behaviour had never previously been observed.

No change to or in condition of defences. Some beach movement. Some further drift of cobble northerly on north side of Nethertown Station Oct 2015 CEUK House [139-141] Evidence of further new home development at Coulderton [147, 157]. The inspection did not include the Network Rail section between Coulderton and Ancient Fishgarth and the sections immediately north of Nethertown July 2016 CEUK station due to tidal restrictions.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 62 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Across the Coulderton frontage there was little change in conditions applying with a variety of attempts undertaken to reinforce the crest of the shingle bank north of the railway arch – gabions [017, 011], random blocks and rubble [012,015] and a new vertical stone/timber construction [020] South of the railway arch no artificial measures have been introduced. Development of the plots identified previously is continuing [006, 007]. Shingle ridge has built up naturally in front of the isolated property at the southern end [004].

Around Nethertown Station and lagoon [201, 204 and 206], no change was identified.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_2_***) CBC078 N end of substantial rock and concrete defences 024 025 026 027 028 CBC079 CoD in substantial rock and concrete defences CBC080 Calcified growth on concrete toe CBC081 S end of substantial rock and concrete defences Part way along random tipped protection to railway CBC083 embankment (1) Part way along random tipped protection to railway CBC085 embankment (3) – landslip location. CBC088 S end of random tipped protection to railway embankment CBC089 Natural bank defences in front of railway (1). CBC090 Natural bank defences in front of railway (2). CBC091 N end of beach properties at Coulderton 021 022 023 Part way along frontage north of railway arch (5). Local CBC091a 020 vertical defences along crest of shingle bank Part way along frontage north of railway arch (4). N end of CBC091b 018 019 local gabion protection Part way along frontage north of railway arch (3). S end of CBC091c 016 017 local gabion protection Part way along frontage north of railway arch (2). Random CBC092 material used to reinforce crest of shingle bank. Adjacent 014 015 house named Silver Spray. Part way along frontage north of railway arch (1). Random CBC092a 012 013 material used to reinforce crest of shingle bank. CBC093 Adjacent to railway arch 008 009 010 011 CBC094 S end of main beach properties 005 006 007 CBC096 Isolated beach property 003 004 CBC097 Start of defences founded on bedrock 001 002 Part way along defences founded on bedrock (2). Rock CBC099 revetment with gabions above CBC100a South end of rock armour extension CBC101 N side of Nethertown station house Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC102 S side of Nethertown station house, start of lagoon 207 CBC103 S end of Nethertown Station platform 206 CBC104 N end corner of Lagoon structure 208 209 210 CBC105 Midpoint of Lagoon structure CBC106 Missing facing to lagoon structure near south end CBC107 S end corner of Lagoon structure CBC109 Concrete groyne/outfall 201 202 203 CBC112 The Knoll - Nethertown (1). Start of defences 200

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 63 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_026 Frame CBC_2016_2_025

Frame CBC_2016_2_022

Frame CBC_2016_2_020

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 64 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_2_017 Frame CBC_2016_2_012

Frame CBC_2016_2_011 Frame CBC_2016_2_007

Frame CBC_2016_2_004 Frame CBC_2016_2_001

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 65 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_206 Frame CBC_2016_1_202

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS On-going and future capital and maintenance coastal defence provision responsibility of Network Rail.

SMP2 Policy is “Managed Re-alignment” in the short term (0-20 years) and “No Active Intervention” in the subsequent epochs (20-50 and 50-100 years) but allowing for intervention work to manage risk to the railway.

The short term policy will effectively provide for development of an “Adaptation strategy” (i.e. provision of flood warnings, maintenance of emergency access, local beach management etc) to manage the risk to existing beach properties at Coulderton but with eventual abandonment of properties likely in the medium to long term. No further development to be permitted, although re-development of existing plots is taking place.

This on-going development identified at Coulderton is not in accordance with recommendations in the SMP2 above (Halcrow, 2011).

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data by Copeland BC at seventeen locations (STB01, NET03-13 and DF08- 12), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency;  Collection of beach survey data, as above plus regular beach topographic surveys in area of beach properties at Coulderton; and  Network Rail to be encouraged to contribute to costs of monitoring in light of SMP2 policy.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 66 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.15 NETHERTOWN 2 Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 18:10-18:15 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 298730E 507600N Finish Coordinate: 298885E 507310N Length: 340 metres Responsibility: Private CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7925 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.5

HAT Level: 5.0m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 5.0-8.0m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 4.86-6.82m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand, shingle and cobbles with some boulders Defence Type: Natural Cliff Revetment Type: Other (clay cliff) Defence Description: Clay cliff frontage Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Cliff Clay - - - 3 5 4 C Cliff Clay - - - 3 5 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 18 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 67 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by No backshore defences over most of promontory but cliff vulnerable to on-going erosion and setback. Defences on north side are largely informal and ad-hoc and whilst they prevent erosion to a degree they are vulnerable to terminal erosion and overtopping causing erosion and slippage of the cliff behind. July 2001 CECS The foreshore is extremely mobile across the whole of this frontage and is vulnerable to movement and draw-down during storms, particularly on the south side of the promontory. Foreshore levels on the north side of promontory are lower. Some beach movement observed but no significant change from previous Sept 2002 CECS inspection. Little change to cliff profile No discernible difference on south side of promontory. Erosion clearly taking April 2003 CECS place on north side that will ultimately threaten rail infrastructure. June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change from previous inspection Beach levels at toe of cliff appear lower around promontory but no significant Jan 2005 CEUK erosion appears to have taken place. No significant change on north side of promontory Localised minor changes in beach conditions along toe of cliff but no major Sept 2005 CEUK erosion or slippage in cliff observed Localised minor changes in beach conditions along toe of cliff but no major Sept 2007 CEUK erosion or slippage in cliff observed. Beach movement has taken place and there has been some minor erosion of the Mar 2008 CEUK cliff face. May 2009 CEUK Observations as previously. Some further erosion of the cliff face has taken place but this appears to be more July 2010 CEUK likely to be run-off induced, as there is no evidence of undercutting due to tide/wave action. Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended. Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections Feb 2012 Symonds annually. Sept 2012 CEUK No noticeable changes observed. Some slumping of cliff face observed, primarily due to run-off, otherwise no other Oct 2013 CEUK changes observed. Oct 2014 CEUK Some erosion of the “Knoll” has taken place, otherwise no noticeable changes. Some slumping of cliff face evident but this thought to be primarily as a result of Oct 2015 CEUK run-off rather than undercutting of the toe due to wave erosion. No significant change observed since last inspection, although width of upper July 2016 CEUK berm appears to be reducing.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) The Knoll - Nethertown (1). Start of CBC112 199 defences CBC114 The Knoll - Nethertown (3) 198 CBC115 Base of Cliffs 196 197 North end of beach properties at CBC117a 195 Nethertown Shore

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 68 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_196 Frame CBC_2016_1_197

Frame CBC_2016_1_198

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Liaison with Network Rail required with regard to interfacing defence requirements. Primary action likely to be required on north side of promontory to reduce risk to railway infrastructure.

The short term policy will effectively provide for development of an “Adaptation strategy” (i.e. provision of

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 69 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

flood warnings, maintenance of emergency access, local beach management etc) to manage the risk to cliff top properties but with eventual abandonment of properties likely in the medium to long term. No further development to be permitted.

Specific attention should also be paid by the relevant organisations to restricting public access along top of cliff due to risk of falls.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at two locations (NET01-02), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009.

On-going data collection requirements:  Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out; and  Network Rail to be encouraged to contribute to costs of monitoring in light of SMP2 policy.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 70 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.16 NETHERTOWN 1 (SHORE PROPERTIES) Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 18:05-18:10 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 298885E 507310N Finish Coordinate: 298900E 507280N Length: 35 metres Responsibility: Private CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7924 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.5

HAT Level: 5.0m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 8.0-10.0m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 7.5-8.0m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: 7.0m ODN Relative Foreshore Level: Medium

Beach Type: Sand, Shingle and Cobble Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Concrete (in-situ) Defence Description: Vertical Property Walls Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 3 Fl Sea wall Concrete - - - 3 8 4 C Sea wall Concrete - - - 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 18 Assessment Rating: Low

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 71 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Change from previous inspection: No change

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The walls are in variable condition with some evidence of damage – cracks etc July 2001 CECS The foreshore is extremely mobile across the whole of this frontage and particularly vulnerable to movement and draw-down during storms. Upper beach berm width reduced compared to 2001 also lower crest level against Sept 2002 CECS walls Additional attention paid to damaged section of frontage at north end and April 2003 CECS potential implications for access road to properties and car park June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change from previous inspection Some slight disturbance around properties but overall little change in the overall Jan 2005 CEUK condition observed. Slight lowering of beach level on north side of properties Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspections

No noticeable change observed in beach or defence condition from previous Sept 2007 CEUK inspections. Additional works carried out to most southerly property abutting car park moving boundary seaward (At owner’s risk)

Mar 2008 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspections

May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspections

July 2010 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspections Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended in previous report. Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections Feb 2012 Symonds annually. Sept 2012 CEUK No noticeable changes observed in this section.

Oct 2013 CEUK No change from previous inspection. Property at northern end now derelict. Localise damage to property infrastructure Oct 2014 CEUK – decking etc. but otherwise no change. Oct 2015 CEUK No change from previous inspection. No significant change observed since last inspection, although width of upper July 2016 CEUK berm appears to be reducing.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC117a North end of beach properties at Nethertown Shore 194 CBC118 South end of Nethertown Shore Properties 193

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 72 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_119

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS An on-going watching brief in association with the car park (210/7923) is required. Regular monitoring of the condition of the access road and retaining wall is also recommended.

Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 73 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.17 NETHERTOWN SHORE CAR PARK Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 18:00-18:05 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 298900E 507280N Finish Coordinate: 298970E 507250N Length: 75 metres Responsibility: Private CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7923 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.5

Beach Type: Sand, Shingle and Cobbles Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Concrete (in-situ) Defence Description: Gabion Wall and Concrete Slabbing Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 3 Fl Revetment Concrete - - - 4 8 4 C Revetment Concrete - - - 4 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 4 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 16 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 74 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The front slabbing has failed along most of this section and the defences, which are in a generally dilapidated condition, could be washed away forcing closure of the car park. This could threaten the integrity of the beach properties to the north. Any works to secure the edge of the car park would need to remain July 2001 CECS landward of the seaward boundaries of the properties to avoid knock-on effects on the property frontages.

The foreshore is extremely mobile across the whole of this frontage and particularly vulnerable to movement and draw-down during storms. Some movement of beach observed. Appears to be less upper beach volume in front of defences in 2002. The section of frontage south towards Braystones was Sept 2002 CECS damaged during the February 1st 2002 event, causing erosion of the earth embankment. Some slight lowering of beach levels has occurred along this section but there has April 2003 CECS been little noticeable change in the condition of the defences June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change from previous inspection Jan 2005 CEUK Little change in the overall condition observed Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change from previous inspection No noticeable change in defence condition, beach levels appear to be lower Sept 2007 CEUK directly in front of defences. Mar 2008 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspections May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspections July 2010 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspections Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended on previous report. Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspections Feb 2012 Symonds annually. Sept 2012 CEUK No noticeable changes observed. No changes in condition observed. Previously identified defects remain. Slipway Oct 2013 CEUK at south end disturbed by works to outfall under railway to south (see section 3.18 below). No noticeable change in condition. Access slipway to beach now reinstated Oct 2014 CEUK following completion of outfall works. Oct 2015 CEUK No change from previous inspection. No significant change observed since last inspection, although width of upper July 2016 CEUK berm appears to be reducing.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC119 Part way along Nethertown Shore Car Park 190 191 192 CBC120 Slipway at south end of Nethertown Shore Car Park 189

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 75 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_190 Frame CBC_2016_1_192

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS An on-going watching brief and contingency plan for retaining the car park are required, if the Authority wishes to maintain this amenity, bearing in mind that any actions could affect adjacent landowners.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a maximum annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out; and  Network Rail to be encouraged to contribute to costs of monitoring in light of SMP2 policy.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 76 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.18 BRAYSTONES TO NETHERTOWN Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 17:00-18:00 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 298970E 507250N Finish Coordinate: 300505E 505385N Length: 2420 metres Responsibility: Network Rail / Private CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7922 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.5

HAT Level: 5.0m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.0-12.0m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 5.19-10.23m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: 6.0m ODN Relative Foreshore Level: Medium

Beach Type: Shingle and Cobble – Sand (lower) Defence Type: Shore/Revetment Revetment Type: Shingle/Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Cliff/Embankment /Linear Rock revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 3 Fl Embankment Clay? - - - 3 8 3 Fl Revetment Rock Armour - - - 2 8 4 C Revetment Rock Armour - - - 2 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 20-30 Assessment Rating: Low to Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 77 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by July 2001 No inspection carried out. Nov 2001 No inspection. Sept 2002 No inspection. April 2003 No inspection. Lengths of armour in good condition. The toe of the embankment is vulnerable to erosion in places, particularly where there are no properties along the beach crest. The upper foreshore is dynamic. The shingle and cobble is artificially moved by residents following storms, which generally wash the shingle over the “road”. June 2004 CEUK Generally along the frontage the shingle has been mounded up in front of properties, both to provide protection and to provide areas for vehicle parking. The beach appears to be in reasonable condition but there is a general feeling amongst residents that the beach is overall loosing volume. A number of properties have been demolished on the frontage since the last inspection and a number of new ones have been or are in the process of being built. No significant damage to properties from storm

Undefended lengths of cliff have been slightly eroded – generally towards the northern end and around station.

Principal effect of the storm was to pile shingle up the beach and over the Jan 2005 CEUK accesses in front of the properties. Beach profile appears flatter and volume could have been lost. Survey required to confirm.

Roadway on north side of station has been reinstated by local landowners but requires additional binder – sand etc. Informal tracked access from station south effectively removed. Access from south end properties to underpass at south end also covered over and since reinstated by landowners. Sand excavated from mounds at top of beach for this purpose. No significant change in condition of frontage – beach or cliff. A few changes in Sept 2005 CEUK properties observed. No further damage to unprotected sections of cliff. Steel pile protection to track edge observed locally at north end No significant change in condition of frontage – beach or cliff. Further property development observed. Random dumped sleepers at north end have been Sept 2007 CEUK bundled together and formalised. Defences around ramp have been reconstructed and toe protection to cliff provided to section to the south as far as the first property. Re-development of a number of plots continuing. More material mounded up in Mar 2008 CEUK front of properties to north of station indicating that re-profiling has been carried out recently (confirmed by property owner). Otherwise no change observed. Plot re-development continuing. New wall and gabion protection built in front of May 2009 CEUK isolated property at northern end of frontage [5190002], otherwise no change apart from on-going beach movement observed. On-going development of properties taking place notably at northern end.

Generally there has been little changes in conditions applying across the frontage with beach movement and local management of crest/access by residents (CBC129-135a) continuing. July 2010 CEUK Specific items of note are:

 Erosion occurring to toe of embankment where there is no protection afforded by properties (CBC129a) [18_190-191].  Localised tipping to supplement shingle (CBC132a) [18_199].

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 78 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

No change from previous inspection. Capita Feb 2011 Symonds Continue monitoring and inspection as recommended in previous report. Overall little change from previous inspection. Some erosion noted to the access track at the southern end (see photos on CD-ROM) and the shingle ridge had Capita Feb 2012 been reinstated in some locations. Symonds

Continue monitoring and inspection annually. Generally conditions remain as previously observed, apart from the following:  The wing walls to the outfall under the railway embankment have collapsed (108, 109). This needs to be brought to the attention of the relevant utility body ASAP.  The beach levels at the properties at the north of this section have dropped Sept 2012 CEUK (103). In other areas beach levels have been maintained by local management by residents.  Some localised erosion of the toe of the embankment north of the station has occurred where there are no properties [101].  New property erected [096] Works to address the collapsed discharge under the railway under construction at the time of the inspection [94-101]. These comprise a new culvert under the railway. Discharge to be diverted into new culvert on landward side of the railway and old culvert is to be grouted up. Temporary access over railway and along foreshore constructed to complete works [97-99].

Elsewhere along the frontage there was no changes to conditions applying apart from the following observations: Oct 2013 CEUK

 Mounding up of shingle, notably on the north side of the station access (CBC127 and CBC131-135) [78-83].  Additional armour stone placed in front of properties immediately north of station (CBC135a-136) [74, 75].  Top section of access ramp at station surfaced with tarmacadam [71].  Mounded shingle on south side of station access [67, 70].  Additional rubble protection placed to seaward side of access track [63, 64]. Outfall works beneath railway completed [128-130].

Winter storms of 2013/14 had an impact on the frontage causing movement of shingle and damage to some properties [122]. Although some of these remain inhabitable, others have been refurbished [105] and in some cases new properties have been constructed where ones did not previously exist [114].

In addition the following specific observations were made:

 Damage to gabion protection to isolated property at north end [131]; Oct 2014 CEUK  Provision of new armour protection to railway embankment, immediately north of main run of properties, assumed to have been carried out by Network Rail [124];  Provision of new armour protection to toe of railway embankment, at gap in properties towards north end, assumed to have been carried out by Network Rail [120];  Provision of slope protection to slippage above railway, north of station [110].  Improved armour protection to properties, north of station [106]; and  Disruption to informal access track along crest of shingle bank, south of station [096].

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 79 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Significant efforts made by property owners to build up shingle mound on seaward side of informal access along much of frontage, north of station [95-102] and south of station [79]. This done by excavating trench in shingle further down beach [80, 96].

End property at northern end now completely demolished but shingle mounded up to protect foundations [108] suggesting intention to re-build. Oct 2015 CEUK Some additional armour added to protection on north side of station access [90].

Immediately south of station a couple of properties have been demolished [84] but foundation bases remain.

Other than the above beach management no change in the condition of Network Rail or private defences was observed. No change in defences applying across the frontage, apart from the following:

 Extension of the section of toe armour protection to the railway embankment immediately south of Braystones station [152] across the section that was previously occupied by a property that was taken down in 2015.  New gabion defences around what is now the first property plot south of the station [150, 151]. The gabion baskets here have been filed with sand and gravel removed from the beach rather than specified single size gabion stone. As a result over time it would be expected that the fines will wash out of these July 2016 CEUK baskets and the baskets will settle, differentially.

Generally across the frontage there appears to have been an increase in excavating material from the beach and using it to bolster the defences to individual properties [141]. Over time this “local” beach management will not be sustainable as there is only a finite resource available and this will not resist the conditions applying.

No new development noted across this frontage.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) Slipway at south end of Nethertown CBC120 188 Shore Car Park Adjacent isolated property at north end CBC121 187 of Braystones shingle bank Outfall through railway embankment CBC122 184 185 186 and shingle bank South end of sleeper protection to CBC124 182 183 railway embankment Armour facing protection to railway CBC125a 181 embankment (2) Armour facing protection to railway CBC126 180 embankment (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC128 178 179 properties north of station (7) Protected length of railway CBC129A 175 176 177 embankment Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC130 172 173 174 properties north of station (5) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC131 170 171 properties north of station (4). CBC132 Shingle bank in front of Braystones 168 169

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 80 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

properties north of station (3). House named Waverley Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC133 166 167 properties north of station (2) CBC134 Manhole in access track 164 165 Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC135 162 163 properties north of station (1) CBC135a North end of new armour 160 161 CBC135b Mid way along armour crest protection 158 159 Base of access slipway at Braystones CBC136 155 156 157 station Armour stone cliff protection at CBC137 153 154 Braystones station First property south of Braystones CBC139 151 152 station Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC139a 150 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC139b 149 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC140 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC140a 147 148 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC140b 146 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC140c 145 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC141 143 144 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC141a 142 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank in front of Braystones CBC142 140 141 properties south of station (1) Shingle bank at Low Tarn Caravan park CBC143 138 139 beach access.

Frame CBC_2016_1_188 Frame CBC_2016_1_187

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 81 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_184 Frame CBC_2016_1_179

Frame CBC_2016_1_177 Frame CBC_2013_1_176

Frame CBC_2016_1_175 Frame CBC_2016_1_167

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 82 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_166 Frame CBC_2016_1_159

Frame CBC_2016_1_158 Frame CBC_2013_1_152

Frame CBC_2016_1_151 Frame CBC_2016_1_146

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 83 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_143 Frame CBC_2016_1_141

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS SMP2 Policy is “Managed Re-alignment” in the short term (0-20 years) and “No Active Intervention” in the subsequent epochs (20-50 and 50-100 years) but allowing for intervention work to manage risk to the railway.

The short term policy will effectively provide for development of an “Adaptation strategy” (i.e. provision of flood warnings, maintenance of emergency access, local beach management etc) to manage the risk to existing beach properties but with eventual abandonment of properties likely in the medium to long term. No further development to be permitted. Although there was no evidence of new development identified during this inspection, sites where properties have historically been located look like they may be re-developed in the future.

It is understood that further Network Rail work around the newly constructed outfall is planned for 2016/2017.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 84 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.19 SELLAFIELD Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 16:35-16:40 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 302160E 503300N Finish Coordinate: 302350E 502920N Length: 425 metres Responsibility: Network Rail CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7921 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.3

HAT Level: 5.1m ODN Exposure: Medium Defence Crest Level: 9.9m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: No data Foreshore Dependency: Low Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Linear Rock revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 3 Fl Revetment Rock Armour - - - 3 8 4 C Revetment Rock Armour - - - 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 30 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 85 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Date Inspected by Comments Flows in river causing blocks to be dislodged at toe of revetment. Structure July 2001 CECS generally intact but vulnerable to movement. Beach conditions generally stable Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Jan 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Mar 2008 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection July 2010 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Feb 2011 Capita Symonds No change from previous inspection. Continue inspections annually. Feb 2012 Capita Symonds No change from previous inspection. Continue inspections annually. Sept 2012 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Oct 2013 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Oct 2014 CEUK No change observed from previous inspection Oct 2015 CEUK No change observed from previous inspection July 2016 CEUK No change observed from previous inspection

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC144 Sellafield Station footbridge 136 137

Frame CBC_2016_1_136 Frame CBC_2016_1_137

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 86 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Network Rail responsibility – No Borough Council defence management input.

It is understood that further Network Rail work at the south end of the frontage towards the River Calder is planned for 2016/2017.

On-going data collection requirements:  Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 87 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2013

3.20 SEASCALE SHORE CAR PARK Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 15:25-15:45 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 303590E 501120N Finish Coordinate: 303700E 500840N Length: 425 metres Responsibility: Copeland BC/NDA1 CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7917 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.1

HAT Level: 5.1m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 7.3m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: -0.04-2.72m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand, Shingle and Cobble Defence Type: Gabion Revetment Type: Gabion Baskets Defence Description: Gabion Wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 Rock 3 Fl Revetment - 2 5 2 6 Armour 4 Fl Wall Gabions - - - 3 8 5 C Wall Gabions - - 1 3 8 Residual life 10-20 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

1 Responsibility for defence lies currently with Copeland not quite as far north as the slipway. Unconfirmed responsibility beyond this point.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 88 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 18 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change from last inspection

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The gabions are in reasonable condition but if beach levels fall they will become more exposed and will be at increasing risk of damage. July 2001 CECS Upper beach levels appear to be generally stable but vulnerable to storm drawdown across this frontage. Sept 2002 CECS More of gabions exposed than at time of previous inspection. April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection June 2004 CEUK Increased vegetation on upper beach and generally less surface fines visible No damage to defences due to storms. Upper beach levels slightly lower against Jan 2005 CEUK defences. Winter vegetation conditions applying. No significant change in condition of defences. Cyclical behaviour of surficial beach Sept 2005 CEUK deposits. No significant change in condition of defences and or foreshore.

Sept 2007 CEUK Localised damage to baskets in a number of places observed. See Supplementary Report (Coastal Engineering, October 2007) Marginally lower beach levels applying at time of inspection but no change Mar 2008 CEUK observed in condition of defences. Beach levels marginally higher on north side of jetty and marginally lower on May 2009 CEUK south side. No change in defence condition with defects previously identified remaining. Repairs to gabion baskets on south side of jetty have been carried out otherwise no change in structure condition. July 2010 CEUK More surficial fines on upper beach on south side of jetty with outfall pipe outlet nearly buried. No change from previous inspection. Capita Feb 2011 Symonds Continue monitoring and inspections as recommended in the previous report.

Capita No change from previous inspection. Feb 2012 Symonds Continue monitoring and inspections annually.

Generally no changes since previous inspection. Some localised repairs to gabion baskets have been carried out (208). Sept 2012 CEUK Discharge from outfall on south side of timber jetty has made channel across upper beach due to heavy rainfall. Some of the bars on the grill over the outfall are bent [214]. Gabions just north of slipway showing further signs of slumping [008, 009] possibly due to lower beach level directly in front decreasing resistance to movement. This is likely to require addressing in short term. Oct 2013 CEUK

Heavy flows from outfall causing channel across beach. Grill to outfall discharge are still damaged [015]. Otherwise no change in conditions observed.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 89 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Northerly drift of upper beach sediments across the frontage has pushed the discharge from the outfall parallel to the shoreline and underneath the jetty before it turns seaward [012, 013, and 016]2. Winter storms of 2013/14 damaged gabions in front of car park, which has resulted in intermittent armour stone protection being provided [006, 009]. Remaining unprotected gabion sections are vulnerable to damage in future, which Oct 2014 CEUK could lead to armour protection being extended across the whole frontage, north of the jetty. Some localised cracking was observed in the concrete hardstanding behind gabions [018], probably induced by movement of the gabions during the storms. This is unlikely to be problematic but should be monitored accordingly.

Grill to outfall replaced [020]. No change to the condition of the defences since the last inspection and the beck has reverted back to more or less the same position as at the time of the previous Oct 2015 CEUK inspection. Remaining unprotected gabions are vulnerable to damage in the future. No change to defence conditions applying across the frontage. The channel from the culverted beck that discharges onto the foreshore at the southern end July 2016 CEUK continues to force its way parallel to the shoreline due to the build up of a beach berm between the outfall and the jetty [109].

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) North end of Seascale Car Park CBC145 096 097 098 Defences. At slipway CBC145a Point on beach 099 Outfall across beach at Seascale Car CBC146 095 100 Park Part way along Seascale Car Park CBC147 Defences. Close to United Utilities 101 102 marker CBC148 Slipway/Jetty at south bend of car park 103 104 105 106 107 108 CBC150 Interface with Seascale (2) defences 111 112 CBC149 Outfall on foreshore 110

Frame CBC_2016_1_098 Frame CBC_2016_1_102

2 Observations by Copeland BC staff suggest that the discharge has reverted to its previous shore perpendicular position, since the inspection was carried out

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 90 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_104 Frame CBC_2016_1_105

Frame CBC_2016_1_109

Frame CBC_2016_1_108 Frame CBC_2016_1_110

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 91 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The defences must be maintained if local infrastructure is to be protected. A review of coastal defence requirements and identification of potential options is provided in supplementary report (Coastal Engineering, October 2007). The proposed SMP2 Policy in all three epochs is “Hold The Line”.

It is understood that responsibility for the defences has been accepted by Copeland BC who carried out the Works to bolster the gabions following the winter storms of 2013/14. However land ownership of the foreshore rests with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and should major works be required in the future it would be appropriate for contributions to be sought from them. Responsibility for the damaged outfall grill is with the riparian landowner, possibly the NDA as well (to be confirmed).

It has been previously identified that the Copeland BC should begin to collect data to support examination and development of options for future coastal management across the Seascale frontage. This approach is supported by the SMP2 Action Plan.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at two locations (SEA06, 07), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 92 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.21 SEASCALE 2 Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 15:45-15:50 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 303700E 500840N Finish Coordinate: 303800E 500650N Length: 215 metres Responsibility: Cumbria CC Highways CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7916 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.1

HAT Level: 5.1m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.5m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 1.05-1.72m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Mostly sand with some large cobbles and boulders along toe Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Concrete (in-situ) Defence Description: Concrete Sea Wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 Rock 3 Fl Revetment - - - 3 8 Armour 4 Fl Wall Concrete - - - 3 8 5 Berm Wall concrete - - - 3 5 6 Fl Revetment Masonry - - - 3 4 7 C Revetment Gabions - - - 2 4 Residual life 5-20 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 93 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 24 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The large mass concrete wall provides the key to the behaviour of the Seascale frontage. It is susceptible to damage with cracks evident and some sections of the toe damaged. As well as risk from damage to the wall the dilapidated conditions of the defences to the south means that restraint on this section of frontage is gradually being removed with the danger that the wall could be July 2001 CECS outflanked.

The boulders along the toe are a constant in terms of position and level, remaining in position from one survey to the next, however the beach levels between the boulders rise and fall dependant on the conditions applying. Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection April 2003 CECS Boulders at toe covered by sand/shingle sediments Boulders at toe exposed. Cyclical beach behaviour would appear to be taking June 2004 CEUK place No damage due to storms and no noticeable change observed from previous Jan 2005 CEUK inspection, apart from reduced fines on beach in front of defences. Slight lowering of beach at north end. No change in defence condition. Moderately more shingle exposed on upper Sept 2005 CEUK beach. No change in defence condition. Slightly higher levels along toe with some of the cobbles and boulders covered with sand and shingle. Localise repair to toe wall Sept 2007 CEUK carried out since last inspection [9050023]. See Supplementary Report (Coastal Engineering, October 2007) Little change at northern end but over remainder of frontage boulders in front of defences have been covered by influx of sand with an increase in level of Mar 2008 CEUK approximately 500-750mm estimate [3020022, 3020023]. No change to defence condition. Beach levels along toe of wall are approximately 500-750mm lower than at time of 2008 survey i.e. the same as in September 2007, confirming the cyclical nature of May 2009 CEUK beach movement across the frontage.

No obvious change in defence condition. No change in structure condition observed. Beach levels different to last inspection with locally more material (sand) at northern terminal end but locally lower along July 2010 CEUK the toe further to the south. Generally upper beach levels appear higher than last year. No change from previous inspection. Capita Feb 2011 Symonds Continue inspections and monitoring as recommended in previous report. Overall no change from previous inspection. Some damage to joints at the front of Capita element 5. Feb 2012 Symonds Continue inspections and monitoring annually Beach levels at the toe of the defences appear to be lower, with less fines in Sept 2012 CEUK between blocks (216). Front wall remains in poor condition (221). Otherwise no change in overall condition. Beach levels similar to last inspection with lack of fines along toe of defences and base of lower wall, which remains in poor condition, exposed in places [23]. Oct 2013 CEUK Upper sections remain in generally good condition. No change in overall condition of structure.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 94 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Beach levels higher than at time of previous inspection with plenty of fines visible. Oct 2014 CEUK No obvious change in lower sections of wall which remains in poor condition but some damage to masonry blockwork above access way [025, 026]. Repairs have been effected to the upper masonry sections, although these sections are still exhibiting cracks (see photo 28). A new concrete toe has been Oct 2015 CEUK constructed in front of the existing one which was in poor condition [22-26, 41]. Overall the condition of this element has been improved but the overall condition remains fair. No change to defence conditions identified, although some localised terminal erosion at the southern end of the upper gabion baskets was observed [116], July 2016 CEUK which needs to be monitored, along with cracks in the lower masonry, which can also be seen in that photograph.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) Interface of Seascale Car Park and CBC150 111 112 Seascale (2) defences CBC150a Start of new concrete toe 2015 113 Part way along Seascale (2) defences. CBC151 114 115 116 135 End of upper gabions. CBC151a End of new concrete toe 2015 117 118 CBC151b Damage to wall 2015 119

Frame CBC_2016_1_112 Frame CBC_2016_1_113

Frame CBC_2016_1_115 Frame CBC_2016_1_116

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 95 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_118 Frame CBC_2016_1_135

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The defences must be maintained if the local infrastructure is to be protected. The new concrete toe has improved the toe to the wall but without the provision of a geotextile underneath the armour there is a risk of material being drawn out from under the toe, dependant on its foundation conditions. A review of coastal defence requirements and identification of potential options was provided in a supplementary report (Coastal Engineering, October 2007). The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold the Line” in all three epochs.

It has been previously identified that the Authority should begin to collect data to support examination and development of options for future coastal management across the Seascale frontage. This approach is supported by the SMP2 Action Plan.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at two locations (SEA04, 05), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 96 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.22 SEASCALE 1 Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 15:50-15:55 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 303800E 500650N Finish Coordinate: 303850E 500580N Length: 60 metres Responsibility: Cumbria CC Highways CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7915 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.1

HAT Level: 5.1m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.5m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 1.6-1.74m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Concrete (in-situ) Defence Description: Concrete revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 3 Fl Revetment Concrete - - - 3 8 4 C Revetment Concrete - - - 3 8 Residual life 10-20 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 24 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 97 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The concrete revetment is in fair condition with only minor defects but is susceptible to damage from lowering beach levels and potential outflanking from July 2001 CECS erosion of unprotected cliffs to the south. The upper foreshore is variable across the frontage. Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection June 2004 CEUK Loss of fine surface sediments from in front of wall No change in condition of defences. Veneer of fine sediments across upper Jan 2005 CEUK beach. No change in condition of defences. Cyclical behaviour observed in surficial Sept 2005 CEUK sediments in front of wall. No change in condition of defences. Cyclical behaviour observed in surficial Sept 2007 CEUK sediments in front of wall as previously. Higher beach levels along toe as along Seascale 2 defences, otherwise no change Mar 2008 CEUK in defence condition. Beach levels along toe of wall are lower than at time of 2008 survey, similar to in September 2007, confirming the cyclical nature of beach movement across the May 2009 CEUK frontage. No obvious change in defence condition, apart from localised cracking and spalling of revetment crest surfacing, which could spread if it is not sealed. No change in structure condition. Beach levels similar to 2009 inspection. July 2010 CEUK Repairs to crest surfacing have been carried out. Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue inspections and monitoring as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended in previous report. No change from previous inspection. Capita Feb 2012 Symonds Continue inspections and monitoring annually. Less sand covering the south end of the defences. Further spalling to edge of Sept 2012 CEUK concrete crest observed, requires attention to avoid it spreading [223]. Otherwise no change in condition. Majority of spalled edges to upper concrete slabbing have been sealed [24]. Oct 2013 CEUK Otherwise no change in condition. Further spalling of accessway and edges to upper concrete slabbing observed. Oct 2014 CEUK Overall condition remains as previously notified. Oct 2015 CEUK No change in condition. Defects identified previously remain. July 2016 CEUK No change in condition. Defects identified previously remain.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC152 Beach in front of Seascale (1) defences 134 CBC152a Part way along Seascale (1) defences 120 121 CBC153 South end of Seascale (1) defences 122

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 98 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_120 Frame CBC_2016_1_121

Frame CBC_2016_1_134

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 99 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The defences must be maintained if the Authority wishes to continue to protect local infrastructure. A review of coastal defence requirements and identification of potential options is provided in supplementary report (Coastal Engineering, October 2007). The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold the Line” in all three epochs.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at one locations (SEA03), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 100 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.23 SOUTH OF SEASCALE Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 15:55-16:10 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 303850E 500580N Finish Coordinate: 303940E 500420N Length: 170 metres Responsibility: Unknown CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7914 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU5.1

HAT Level: 5.1m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 5-10m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 6.31-6.69m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle with some cobble and boulders Defence Type: Shore Revetment Type: Stone (unworked); Shingle Defence Description: Masonry Wall and Shore Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 1 3 Fl Wall Masonry - - - 5 8 4 C Wall Masonry - - - 5 8 5 FO Wall Masonry 5 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 5 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 20 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change from last inspection

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 101 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The remaining sections of wall are in poor condition and likely to fail completely in the next 5 years. Some gabion baskets have been placed around access steps to July 2001 CECS the beach to maintain this feature. Coastal slope erosion will continue. The upper foreshore is variable with cyclical behaviour of the surface sediments. Some low level erosion of cliffs here and to south. Lowering of beach in front of defences and on-going erosion of unprotected Sept 2002 CECS lengths of cliff. More coarse beach sediments exposed on upper beach at southern end, otherwise April 2003 CECS no noticeable change observed from previous inspection Coarser beach sediments exposed on upper beach at southern end, exposed cliff June 2004 CEUK in front of large white property at southern end showing signs of further erosion and slumping. Jan 2005 CEUK Sand veneer over upper surface beach. No significant change in cliff erosion. Greater mixture of surficial sediments on upper beach but no change in cliff Sept 2005 CEUK erosion or condition of defence remnants. No change in condition of defences. Cyclical behaviour observed in surficial Sept 2007 CEUK sediments in front of wall with more sand at north end and more shingle and cobble to the south. More fines and increase in level across upper beach. Otherwise no change in Mar 2008 CEUK shoreline/defence condition. No change in defence condition. Observations as made in 2007, confirming cyclical May 2009 CEUK nature of beach movement. No change in defence or cliff condition. Observations as previously, cyclical July 2010 CEUK movement of beach Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue inspections and monitoring as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended in previous report Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue inspections and monitoring Feb 2012 Symonds annually. Generally more surficial sand on upper foreshore. Otherwise no change in Sept 2012 CEUK condition observed. Generally less surficial sand on upper parts of foreshore in front of cliffs. Oct 2013 CEUK Otherwise no change in condition observed. Beach conditions variable with more coarse material mixed in with sand deposits. Oct 2014 CEUK Some slight deterioration in remains of defences in places [035], otherwise little change to shoreline conditions. Beach recovery with more surficial sand on upper beach and notably higher beach Oct 2015 CEUK levels along toe of cliff at northern end [31-32] with previously exposed gabions around access steps now largely buried. Otherwise no change. Reversal of behaviour around access steps with gabions and underlying shingle deposits re-exposed. Surficial sand here has been re-distributed further down the July 2016 CEUK beach, in accordance with the cyclical behaviour previously observed across this frontage.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC153 South end of Seascale (1) defences 123 Beach in front of cliffs South of Seascale CBC153a 133 (1) defences Access steps South of Seascale (1) CBC154 124 defences Dilapidated defences south of Seascale CBC155 125 126 (1) CBC156 South End of defences south of Seascale 127 128 129

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 102 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Beach in front of cliffs/dilapidated CBC157 130 131 132 defences South of Seascale (1)

Frame CBC_2016_1_133 Frame CBC_2016_1_130

Frame CBC_2016_1_124 Frame CBC_2016_1_127

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Defence responsibility across this section likely to be the responsibility of the cliff top property in the middle of the frontage [130]. The proposed SMP2 Policy is “No Active Intervention” in all three epochs. Current management accords with this policy.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at two locations (SEA01, 02), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2009.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 103 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.24 RAVENGLASS TO SALTCOATS Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 14:50 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 308230E 496880N Finish Coordinate: 308450E 496590N Length: 360 metres Responsibility: Network Rail CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7913 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU3.3

HAT Level: 5.2m ODN Exposure: Low Defence Crest Level: 6.0m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: No data Foreshore Dependency: Medium Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Mud Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Stone (worked) Defence Description: Sloping Masonry revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Revetment Masonry - - - 3 8 4 C Revetment Masonry - - - 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 30 Assessment Rating: Medium

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 104 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Change from previous inspection: No change

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The structure is in reasonable condition for its age with only minor maintenance likely to be required in the short term – patching, joint filling etc.

July 2001 CECS The foreshore appears to be generally stable with a generally healthy beach in front. Any material moved across frontage will be trapped in the corner between the end of the Ravenglass stone wall (210/7912) and the railway embankment. Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Jan 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Mar 2008 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Beach levels along toe of embankment marginally higher than 2009 inspection, July 2010 CEUK otherwise no noticeable change observed from previous inspection Capita No change from previous inspection. Feb 2011 Symonds Continue monitoring and inspection as recommended in previous report. Capita No change from previous inspection. Feb 2012 Symonds Continue monitoring and inspection annually. Sept 2012 CEUK No change from previous inspection. Oct 2013 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Oct 2014 CEUK No change from previous inspection. Oct 2015 CEUK No change from previous inspection. No change from previous inspection. It is understood that Network Rail has carried out some scour protection work – willow spilling3 in front of embankment and July 2016 CEUK some small armour on landward/upstream side of structure. Not visible from inspection point.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC159 Slipway at north end of Ravenglass frontage 093 094

3 Willow spilling appeared to have suffered damage during storms and high tide on 20.08.2016 (D Bechelli, e-mail to CEUK 14/09/16)

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 105 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_093 Frame CBC_2016_1_094

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Network Rail responsibility – No Borough Council defence management input.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold The Line” in all three epochs. Current management practice accords with this policy.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency; and  Network Rail to be encouraged to contribute to costs of monitoring in light of SMP2 policy and assets at risk.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 106 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.25 RAVENGLASS 2 Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 14:45-14:50 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 308450E 496590N Finish Coordinate: 308400E 496400N Length: 200 metres Responsibility: EA? CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7912 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU3.2

HAT Level: 5.2m ODN Exposure: Low Defence Crest Level: 5.8m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: 3.54-4.46m ODN Foreshore Dependency: Medium Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Armour block wall Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Wall Rock Armour - - - 2 8 4 C Wall Rock Armour - - - 2 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 2 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 16 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change from last inspection

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 107 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The defences are in good condition with no obvious signs of distress. Grassed area July 2001 CECS behind doesn’t appear to have been unduly affected by tide or wave action. The foreshore appears to be generally stable. Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection No damage to defences. Debris thrown up onto green behind indicating that Jan 2005 CEUK some localised overtopping took place. Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Beach levels in front of defences marginally higher, otherwise no noticeable Mar 2008 CEUK change in condition. May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection July 2010 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue inspection and monitoring as Feb 2011 Symonds recommended in previous report. Capita Feb 2012 No change from previous inspection. Continue inspection and monitoring annually. Symonds Beach levels marginally lower, with top of third layer of blocks exposed. Condition Sept 2012 CEUK of blocks and foreshore unchanged. Local pitting of slipway surfacing observed (238) – probably due to combination of rainfall run off and vehicular access. Beach levels similar to those observed at time of last inspection. No change in Oct 2013 CEUK structure condition. Oct 2014 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection No noticeable change in defence condition from previous inspection. Outfall under Oct 2015 CEUK wall in centre of frontage running [47]. No change in defence condition. Ground/surface water, arising from heavy rainfall July 2016 CEUK during inspection, discharging though outfalls [088, 089].

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC159 Slipway at north end of Ravenglass frontage 092 CBC160 Part way along of Ravenglass village frontage 088 089 090 091 South end of Ravenglass village frontage/start of CBC161 086 house walls

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 108 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_092 Frame CBC_2016_1_091

Frame CBC_2016_1_090 Frame CBC_2016_1_087

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 109 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The defences are understood to have been installed by the Environment Agency but they don’t regard them as their asset (D Bechelli, e-mail to CEUK 14/09/16).

Defence inspection identified that there are no maintenance actions required.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold The Line” in all three epochs. Current management practice accords with this policy.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at one location (RAV05), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2009 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out, under NWRMP arrangements.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 110 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.26 RAVENGLASS 1 Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 14:40-14:45 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 308400E 496400N Finish Coordinate: 308490E 496210N Length: 300 metres Responsibility: Private landowners CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7911 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU3.2

HAT Level: 5.2m ODN Exposure: Medium Defence Crest Level: 6.4m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: 2.67-4.28m ODN Foreshore Dependency: Medium Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Compacted mud and stone / marsh Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Concrete (in-situ) Defence Description: Vertical Property Walls Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------Shingle/ 2 CS Foreshore - - - 3 2 Marsh 3 Fl Wall Masonry - - - 3 8 4 C Wall Masonry - - - 3 8 5 FO Wall Masonry 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 24 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 111 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The walls are in variable condition but appear to offer a generally low level of July 2001 CECS protection to spray overtopping during extreme events. The foreshore appears to be generally stable. Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Jan 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Mar 2008 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection July 2010 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Capita No change from previous inspection. Feb 2011 Symonds Continue inspection and monitoring as recommended in previous report. Capita No change from previous inspection. Feb 2012 Symonds Continue inspection and monitoring annually. Beach levels marginally lower against slipway (245) but no change in defence Sept 2012 CEUK condition.

Oct 2013 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection

Some damage occurred to property boundary walls during winter 2013/14 storms Oct 2014 CEUK which have either been replaced or reconstructed [054]. No noticeable change in foreshore conditions. Re-rendering of external boundary walls continuing following storms, otherwise no Oct 2015 CEUK change in defence condition. Open common sections with Public Right of Way have/are being raised slightly. No further rendering of walls undertaken since previous inspection, although a July 2016 CEUK number have been painted [085]. No change in condition east of slipway [079- 081].

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) South end of Ravenglass village CBC161 085 086 frontage/start of house walls. CBC162 Midpoint of property frontage 083 084 Slipway at south end of Ravenglass CBC163 081 082 frontage CBC164 Private defences east of village 079 080

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 112 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_085 Frame CBC_2016_1_084

Frame CBC_2016_1_083 Frame CBC_2016_1_081

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 113 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Maintenance is responsibility of individual landowners and it is understood that Flooding Repair and Renew Grants (RRG) were obtained to carry out the repair works following the winter 2013-14 storms.

In addition open common sections with Public Right of Way have/are being raised slightly.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold The Line” in all three epochs. Current management practice accords with this policy.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at three locations (DD01-02, RAV02), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2006 (DD) and 2008 (RAV) and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 114 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.27 ROMAN FORT TO RAVENGLASS Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 14:30-14:40 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 308490E 496210N Finish Coordinate: 308750E 495700N Length: 570 metres Responsibility: Network Rail CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7910 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU3.1

HAT Level: 5.2m ODN Exposure: Low Defence Crest Level: 5.2m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: 3.01-3.03m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Compacted mud and stone Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Stone (worked) Defence Description: Masonry stone walls Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Wall Masonry - - - 4 8 4 C Wall Masonry - - - 4 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 40 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 115 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by These defences have been breached allowing the cliff behind to be eroded. Remaining sections of the defence are in a poor condition. The foreshore is largely July 2001 CECS sheltered from significant wave activity, appears to be generally stable but vulnerable to movement during storms. Sept 2002 CECS No significant change observed from previous inspection. April 2003 CECS Further slumping of exposed cliff face north of Bath House underpass June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection No significant change to remains of artificial defences. Some localised slumping of Jan 2005 CEUK cliff face, possibly more to do with rainwater run-off than tidally induced erosion. Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Mar 2008 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection July 2010 CEUK No obvious change in conditions applying Capita Feb 2011 Minor maintenance to baskets required at toe. Symonds Capita Feb 2012 No change from previous inspection. Continue inspection and monitoring annually. Symonds Sept 2012 CEUK Generally no noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Oct 2013 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Oct 2014 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Oct 2015 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection July 2016 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Heavy Rain

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC164a North end of dilapidated defences 077 078 CBC165 CBC166 CBC167 075 076 Dilapidated defences between CBC168 Ravenglass and Walls Bridge CBC169 CBC170 CBC171

Frame CBC_2016_1_078 Frame CBC_2016_1_077

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 116 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Responsibility for defence maintenance is believed to rest with Network Rail. Their nearest infrastructure is located some 20-150 metres landward of the defence line and accordingly no action is generally undertaken.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “No Active Intervention” in all three epochs but allowing for intervention to manage the risk to the railway. Current management accords with this policy.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at two locations (RAV01, 04), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 (01) and 2009 (04) and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection requirements:  Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out, supplemented by further section in front of high cliff to south.  Network Rail to be encouraged to contribute to costs of monitoring in light of SMP2 policy.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 117 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.28 BRIGHOUSE TO ROMAN FORT, RAVENGLASS Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: NA Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 308750E 495700N Finish Coordinate: 308820E 495340N Length: 370 metres Responsibility: Network Rail CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7909 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU3.1

HAT Level: 5.2m ODN Exposure: Low Defence Crest Level: 10.0m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: 3.76-5.25m ODN Foreshore Dependency: Medium Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Compacted mud and stone Defence Type: Seawall Revetment Type: Stone (worked) Defence Description: Masonry stone walls Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Wall Masonry - - - 3 8 4 C Wall Masonry - - - 3 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 30 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 118 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by Apart from the section around the underpass at Bath House, much of the revetment is overgrown with vegetation. The section in worst condition appears July 2001 CECS to have been repaired by construction of a rock revetment. The foreshore is largely sheltered from significant wave activity, appears to be generally stable but vulnerable to movement during storms. Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection June 2004 No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Frontage not affected by Jan 2005 CEUK storm. Sept 2005 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection Mar 2008 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection May 2009 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection July 2010 CEUK Damage to ramp facing blocks, otherwise no change Capita No change from previous inspection. Feb 2011 Symonds Continue inspection and monitoring as recommended in previous report. Capita No change from previous inspection. Feb 2012 Symonds Continue inspection and monitoring annually. Flanks to underpass/outfall require attention to dislodged blocks (NR Sept 2012 CEUK responsibility). No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Oct 2013 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Defects previously Oct 2014 CEUK identified still remain. No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Defects previously Oct 2015 CEUK identified still remain. July 2016 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection.4

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC172 Access under railway at Walls Bridge Area of damage to access flanks - CBC172a upstream side NR embankment and foreshore south of CBC173 Walls Bridge Unprotected frontage south of Walls CBC174 Bridge No photos recorded in 2016 due to weather conditions. Heavy Rain

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

4 Network Rail have placed approximately 100 metres of rock armour since inspection (D Bechelli, e-mail to CEUK 14/09/16)

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 119 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Blockwork at underpass requires attention; this is Network Rail responsibility – No Borough Council defence management input.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “No Active Intervention” in all three epochs but allowing for intervention to manage the risk to the railway. Current management accords with this policy.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at one location (RAV03), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2009 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency.  Network Rail to be encouraged to contribute to costs of monitoring in light of SMP2 policy.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 120 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.29 STUBB PLACE, BOOTLE Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 12:50-13:10 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 308005E 490765N Finish Coordinate: 308010E 490550N Length: 215 metres Responsibility: Cumbria CC CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7906 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU2.1

HAT Level: 5.2m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.8-7.2m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 5.82-7.2m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: <6.5m ODN Relative Foreshore Level: Medium

Beach Type: Sand, Shingle and Cobble Defence Type: Gabions Revetment Type: Gabion baskets / Concrete (pre-cast) Defence Description: Sand, Shingle and Cobble Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Wall Concrete - - - 4 8 4 C Wall Concrete - - - 4 8 Residual life 10-20 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 36 Assessment Rating: Medium Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 121 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The defences are in poor condition and generally not suitable for the exposure conditions applying. July 2001 CECS The upper foreshore is a mobile shingle beach that is particularly vulnerable to movement or draw down in front of defences during storms. The lower sand foreshore is inherently more stable. There has been a slight worsening of the condition of the defences since the last Sept 2002 CECS inspection. April 2003 CECS No noticeable change from previous inspection. June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change from previous inspection. Only minimal shoreline erosion was observed to the south of the road but there appears to have been a loss of material from in front of the road (more of the dilapidated gabions are exposed) and there has been terminal erosion around the end of the concrete beams at the corner where the road heads inland. Foreshore Jan 2005 CEUK now appears to be a single gradient rather than “bermed” above gabions. Debris has been thrown up onto the upper part of the shingle bank and it is envisaged that localised flooding of the road occurred. The toilet block has been demolished at the corner and this location represents the most vulnerable part of the frontage to erosion. Beach levels locally higher along road frontage. Some local beach management Sept 2005 CEUK appears to have taken place across Eskmeals Sept 2007 CEUK Some further variability in beach levels otherwise no significant change. Mar 2008 CEUK Some movement of the beach deposits but no overall change in condition. Generally no change across northern half of frontage, with beach levels marginally higher here. Across the southern half beach levels appear to have dropped suggesting northerly drift of material. Here the crest of the shingle bank is within two metres of the edge of the carriageway [5190116]. The level of the beach is May 2009 CEUK locally higher in front of the land drainage outfall. The northerly drift can also be seen on the south side of the brick buttress remains to the south of the highway [5190123]. To the south of the frontage the shoreline appears stable but vulnerable to erosion. There has been little change in the conditions applying from the 2009 inspection, apart from the artificial mounding up of some sand and shingle where the erosion had nearly reached the highway last year. It is not immediately clear where this material has come from – possibly material from nearby on the beach just pushed up against the carriageway edge.

It is understood that additional concrete blocks, similar to those placed at the southern end of the frontage are being made available to provide protection to the July 2010 CEUK edge of the highway. It is suggested that these would best be located as high up the beach as possible i.e. along the edge of the highway and that any beach material released by their placement be used to supplement the beach in front of the blocks. At the same time the existing blocks could be moved and replaced as these are vulnerable to overtopping in their current location and have effectively trapped material behind them that could be providing a defence function. Carrying out works along the crest would not require a FEPA Licence whereas construction lower down the beach would so. No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspection as Capita recommended in previous report. Additional defences have been constructed at Feb 2011 Symonds Stubb Place. Discussions are ongoing with MoD to realign the road inland to remove erosion risks. The Pendine blocks have collapsed along much of their length during storms in Capita Feb 2012 December 2011. Capita Symonds is in the process of preparing a report for Symonds Copeland BC to examine options for defending the road in its current alignment

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 122 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

for the next 20 years, as recommended in SMP2. Continue monitoring annually. The Pendine blocks have been reformed and replaced following the storm damage in December 2011 (266). From the central access point to the south end of this frontage the blocks now form an informal sloping revetment. Across the northern half of the frontage, remnants of gabion revetment remain, the condition of which Sept 2012 CEUK has not significantly altered. Immediately south of the frontage there has been no change. Generally the beach looks healthier than during previous inspections with a sand/ shingle mix. No change in defence condition but notably higher beach levels directly in front of defences with more shingle and little surficial sand in evidence. Oct 2013 CEUK No change in conditions on south flank of defences. Ready supply of additional Pendine blocks available in the event of storm damage [69]. Storms of winter 2013/14 caused further damage to Pendine blocks and completely destroyed central access ramp. Some localised reforming of blocks has taken place but overall the level of protection appears to have reduced.

In addition overtopping caused damage to the boundary wall on the landward side Oct 2014 CEUK of the public highway [085].

At the southern end of the frontage the shoreline has been advanced by the landowner by infilling with earth [081] which will just erode over time.

Some clay has been placed on the foreshore at the northern end of the Pendine blocks as infill between the blocks and the eroding shoreline behind [73, 74]. Oct 2015 CEUK Otherwise the conditions remain as observed during the previous inspection. No evidence of erosion of the clay fill at the southern end. Generally no change in conditions applying apart from the clay that had been placed in the centre of the frontage has mostly been washed away [069]. The July 2016 CEUK clay placed at the southern end [061-063] has eroded over the winter with a crest width of only 1-2 metres to seaward of the boundary fence now remaining.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) Boundary with MoD frontage at north CBC175 071 072 073 074 end CBC175a Start of concrete blocks 069 070 CBC175b Access 067 068 CBC178 South end of highway frontage 063 064 065 066 Field boundary south of highway CBC180 060 061 062 frontage

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 123 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_073 Frame CBC_2016_1_071

Frame CBC_2016_1_069 Frame CBC_2016_1_067

Frame CBC_2016_1_064 Frame CBC_2016_1_063

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 124 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Localised shoreline management and monitoring was previously identified as being required in the short term, to maintain the defence to the highway.

The long term preferred solution is construction of a new road access, which would be further inland and not subject to the same risk of erosion as the current road. Discussions between QinetiQ, Copeland BC and Cumbria CC are ongoing, but it will be a number of years before a new road can be constructed.

In the interim Copeland BC commissioned Capita Symonds to prepare a report, assessing the current defences and appraising options for defending the road from erosion, in its current alignment, until the new road has been constructed. This report (Capita, April 2012) considered a range of options and concluded that technically, environmentally and economically the preferred option was to re-use the existing Pendine blocks to construct new upgraded defences along a setback alignment, in phases, as erosion progresses and the road is threatened. Some consultation with local interests has been carried out with the Parish Council favouring the option of reconstruction on the existing alignment, thereby preserving the “amenity” area between the shoreline and the road.

The current measures generally accord with this approach but the defences continue to be vulnerable to overtopping and damage during storms, which will require gradual setback, if measures are to remain cost effective.

The current approach is in accordance with the SMP2 policy of “Managed Re-Alignment” in all three epochs.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at three locations (BOT05-07), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2004 but was not carried out in 2012.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried; and  Maintenance of Pendine Blocks as and when necessary.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 125 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.30 HARTREES HILL (SILECROFT) Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 12:05-12:30 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 311895E 481435N Finish Coordinate: 312300E 480700N Length: 840 metres Responsibility: Private CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7903 NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU1.3

HAT Level: 5.3m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 6.0-8.5m ODN Beach Stability: Variable Foreshore Toe Level: 6.86-8.41m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: 5.5m ODN Relative Foreshore Level: Medium

Beach Type: Sand and Shingle Defence Type: Shore/ Gabions Revetment Type: Shingle / Gabion Baskets Defence Description: Shore / Box Gabion Walls Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Shingle - - - 3 2 3 Fl Wall Gabions - - - 2 8 4 C Wall Gabions - - - 2 8 Residual life 10-20 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 12-18 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 126 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by The defences at the northern end are in generally good condition, particularly as this form of construction is not generally recommended for use in such exposed conditions, as witnessed in other locations on the Copeland shoreline (210/7906). It is likely that the shoreline may have experienced some erosion during the February 1990 storms, which could have been the catalyst for the defences to be erected. However the condition of the structures and the beach indicates that July 2001 CECS they have only been in service infrequently since construction. The condition of the grassed bank to the north and the intermediate length between sections of gabions appears to confirm this. The upper foreshore is a mobile shingle beach that is particularly vulnerable to movement or draw down in front of defences during storms. The lower sand foreshore is inherently more stable. Slightly lower beach levels observed in front of defences compared to previous Sept 2002 CECS inspection. Slight erosion of central section of undefended earth slope. Length of inspection increased to include all properties and car park section to north. Little change observed to gabion protected sections although there could April 2003 CECS be potential short term erosion problems at the terminal ends of the gabion sections. The ad-hoc defences to the south of the gabions are in need of urgent short term replacement if protection to cliff top properties is to be maintained. Two sections of defences at southern end of frontage have been replaced with a vertical concrete wall and gabions respectively. Inspection length increased to June 2004 CEUK north to include low lying land north of car park to where cliffs start to rise. Additional photos taken for detailed study. New gabion wall constructed in front of new vertical concrete wall identified in previous inspection. Elsewhere no change in condition of artificial defence Jan 2005 CEUK lengths. Only slight erosion of unprotected cliff lengths observed as a result of storms. Path on top of crest to north of car park now effectively severed (1190107). Sept 2005 CEUK No significant change observed. Path reinstated. No noticeable change observed in beach, cliff or defence condition from previous inspection. New gabion defences being erected to building plot towards south Sept 2007 CEUK end. Material being used to infill low spot in cliff immediately to the south [9050098]. Extension constructed to last property adjacent to golf club. Some movement and flattening of beach profile but generally no obvious significant change in shoreline condition. Defences completed to plot towards Mar 2008 CEUK south end, although some slippage in cliff behind [3020097]. Land drainage appears to be forcing channel through placed bund to low spot [3020102]. Beach levels along the toe of gabion defences appear to be marginally (100- 300mm) higher than at the time of the previous inspection. The individual lengths of gabions remain vulnerable to terminal erosion but overall there has been no significant change in condition. May 2009 CEUK The land drainage path through the bund in front of the low spot appears to have been sealed [5190150]. These defences remain vulnerable to damage from extreme tide/wave combinations. Very little change observed from previous inspection apart from more surficial July 2010 CEUK fines in upper sections of beach. Capita No change from previous inspection. Feb 2011 Symonds Continue inspections and monitoring as recommended in previous report. Capita No change from previous inspection. Continue inspections and monitoring Feb 2012 Symonds annually. Localised erosion of clay cliff in a number of places to north of properties due Sept 2012 CEUK primarily to uncontrolled access. No change in defence or foreshore condition across remainder of frontage.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 127 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Unprotected low cliff to north continues to be vulnerable to erosion from informal access [80].

No change in the condition of gabion defences in front of properties but the following observed: Oct 2013 CEUK

 Construction of new property utilising previous property as foundations [87]  Beach profile has varied with steeper slope between upper berm in front of defences and lower sloping section of upper beach [92]. Needs cross referencing to monitoring as potentially indicative of beach recession. No overall significant differences observed compared to the previous inspection apart from the following:  Some localised lowering of beach levels in front of sections of gabions observed [106], Oct 2014 CEUK  Slight erosion of sections of unprotected clay cliffs [103]; and  Some localised terminal erosion at the ends of lengths of gabions [096].

Lower beach levels increases vulnerability of damage to existing gabions should significant storm conditions occur this winter. Apart from a local extension of a short section of gabion basket protection, which Oct 2015 CEUK was previously in danger of being outflanked [94], no changes to conditions applying was observed. No change in beach and/or structure conditions applying although beach levels July 2016 CEUK slightly higher in front of the defences at the southern end. Heavy Rain.

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC182 Access adjacent to toilet block 036 037 038 CBC182aa Slumping to cliff 039 CBC182a Adjacent to telephone cable marker 040 Base of access steps at interface with CBC184 041 042 058 property frontage CBC185 043 CBC186 044 CBC187 Hartrees Hill property frontages 045 CBC188 046 047 CBC190 048 Natural valley/depression in cliff at CBC191 049 050 051 Hartrees Hill CBC192 052 053 CBC193 Hartrees Hill property frontages 054 CBC194 055 056 057

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 128 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_037 Frame CBC_2016_1_058

Frame CBC_2016_1_043

Frame CBC_2016_1_046 Frame CBC_2016_1_048

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 129 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_053 Frame CBC_2016_1_052

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Requirement to ascertain responsibility for defences. Liaison/discussion with landowners required to agree approach to future defence management. No actions required as a result of the inspection.

Erection of railing/fence along edge of crest between properties and toilet block would reduce erosion risk from uncontrolled access over cliffs.

Recommendations from erosion risk studies (2004) are to be used as basis for on-going management of this frontage, modified as appropriate to take into account the proposed SMP2 policy. This is “Hold the Line” in all three epochs subject to private funding and ensuring that any proposals do not have an adverse effect on overall process behaviour.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at five locations (SIL01-04, LCC04), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2007 (LCC) and 2008 (SIL) and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of beach topographic surveys commenced in 2004 but was not carried out in 2012.

On-going data collection requirements:

 Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency; and  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 130 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.31 HAVERIGG Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 10:35-11:00 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 315850E 478300N Finish Coordinate: 316500E 478750N Length: 800 metres Responsibility: Copeland BC CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7902b NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11d/PU1.1

HAT Level: 5.35m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: 7.5m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: -0.88-3.67m ODN Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Sand and mud (marsh areas), limited shingle Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Rock 1-4 t Defence Description: Linear Rock revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Sand/Shingle - - - 2 2 3 Fl Dune Sand - - - 2 2 3 Fl Revetment Rock - - - 2 8 4 C Revetment Rock - - - 2 8 Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 2 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 12-16 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 131 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES Inspected Date Comments by This section of shoreline is directly exposed to south westerly waves but much of the wave energy is expended on the sands in front of the village. Consequently the defences are in good condition with no signs of damage. The defences on the west side of the discharge of Haverigg Pool serve a dual function of preventing the discharge of the pool from moving westwards, along with the vertical training structure and preventing erosion of the greensward. The protection to the toe of the dunes, which are low in elevation, does not appear to be active under normal conditions but may play a role in preventing dune toe erosion in storms. The rock July 2001 CECS armour along the dune frontage has been colonised with wind blown sand and dune grasses.

The defences on the east side of the discharge are in equilibrium with the beach conditions applying and provide a service in storms with the beach providing the coastal defence function under normal conditions. The defences are in good condition, are not unduly visually intrusive and appear to be generally in equilibrium with the foreshore conditions at the present time. The foreshore appears to be generally stable and possibly accreting Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection No significant change, apart from coarser upper beach deposits visible in front of June 2004 CEUK dunes and more armour visible indicating lower beach levels applying. No noticeable change in the condition of the artificial defences but the toe of the dunes has been eroded, exposing armour stone, on the west side of the river Jan 2005 CEUK discharge (1190148). The extent of armour stone beneath the dune needs to be established from scheme as constructed drawings. Dune frontage has recovered from storm induced erosion over winter. There Sept 2005 CEUK appears to have been an increase in the area of “green beach” on the west side of the river outlet, otherwise no other change. Sept 2007 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Dune section to west of lifeboat slipway access inspected for the first time [3020132-3020136]. The most easterly part of this section appears to be under pressure from human activities e.g. uncontrolled human access with blow holes and vegetation trampling [3020132]. Further west the foredunes are lower and Mar 2008 CEUK appear to be stable accreting [3020135]. This more westerly section is more protected by the offshore Bullstone Bed [3020138]. Elsewhere there was no change in defence condition. Also some of the areas where vegetation is taking hold were covered with mud [3020126]. Higher beach levels in front of dunes on west side of river discharge, probably as a result of recent strong winds. Lower beach adjacent to river discharge appears May 2009 CEUK “greener”. Signs of embryo dune growth west of slipway. Otherwise no significant change. No change in condition of artificial defences but there has been further expansion in the area of green beach to the west of the river discharge [19_092-93]. Locally July 2010 CEUK there has been movement of sand with areas of shingle exposed on the upper foreshore. Little change in dunes to west of lifeboat slipway. Capita Minimal change from previous inspection. Feb 2011 Symonds Continue monitoring and inspection as recommended in previous report. Capita Feb 2012 No change from previous inspection. Continue monitoring and inspection annually. Symonds No change in defence condition observed. Some damage to lower slab to slipway Sept 2012 CEUK – requires reinstatement (316). Some further “greening” of beach to west side of jetty on Haverigg Pool channel (320).

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 132 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

No change in the condition of the artificial defences ,dunes or beach, apart from the following observations:

Oct 2013 CEUK  Replacement of the bottom slab to the slipway by the Lifeboat station [126]  Water lying on beach surface between Haverigg Pool discharge and slipway [121].

Some localised erosion along the toe of unprotected dunes between the river Oct 2014 CEUK outlet and the Slipway [143], otherwise no change in conditions observed. Wind blown sand ramped up against dune toe covering over eroded toe observed last year [137], otherwise no change in defence condition. Monitoring suggests July 2016 CEUK that minor changes to nearshore channel and bank arrangements are taking place [126,140] July 2016 CEUK No change in conditions observed. Heavy Rain

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) Defences on west side of Haverigg Pool CBC195 015 016 Discharge (1) Armour roundhead in dunes at Haverigg CBC197 013 014 Pool CBC198 On Haverigg Pool Jetty/Landing Stage 011 012 Seaward end of Haverigg Pool CBC199 009 010 Jetty/Landing Stage West side of armour roundhead in CBC199a 008 dunes at CBC200 East end of exposed dune toe armour 007 CBC201 Lifeboat access slipway through dunes 004 005 006 CBC201a Dunes west of slipway 002 003 CBC203a Crest of dune above CBC200 001 Part way along defences east of CBC203b 034 035 Haverigg Pool CBC204 East end of Haverigg Defences 032 033 CBC205 West end of Outer barrier

Frame CBC_2016_1_006 Frame CBC_2016_1_012

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 133 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Frame CBC_2016_1_011

Frame CBC_2016_1_016 Frame CBC_2016_1_034

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 134 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS No maintenance of primary defence structures required at present time, although repairs to lower slabbing of lifeboat access slipway should be carried out. Continued monitoring of dune toe recommended.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold The Line” across the frontage to the east of the Lifeboat access and “No Active Intervention” to the west, in all three epochs. Current management practice accords with this policy.

Bi-annual collection of beach profile data at five locations (HAV01-HAV05), in accordance with previous recommendations, started in 2008 and is continuing, under NWRMP arrangements. Recording of the position of the dune commenced in 2009 but was not carried out in 2012.

On-going data collection requirements:  Inspection of defences on a minimum bi-annual frequency;  Continued collection of beach survey data as currently being carried out; and  Recommencement of monitoring of dune toe recommended.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 135 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

COPELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL – ANNUAL COASTAL DEFENCE INSPECTION SHEET 2016

3.32 HAVERIGG OUTER BARRIER Survey Details

Date: 15th July 2016 Time: 11:15-11:45 Inspector: AJW Low water time: 15.13 hours BST (Whitehaven) Low water height: -1.6m (OD) Newlyn Weather conditions: Overcast with heavy rain until mid afternoon. Brighter later. Wind W to SW Force 4-6.

Start Coordinate: 318100E 478150N Finish Coordinate: 316500E 478760N Length: 2400 metres Responsibility: Copeland BC CPSE Defence Length Ref: 210/7902a NFCDD/EA Asset Ref: SMP2 Policy Unit: 11c/PU16.12

HAT Level: 5.35m ODN Exposure: High Defence Crest Level: >7.5m ODN Beach Stability: Stable Foreshore Toe Level: No data Foreshore Dependency: High Action Beach Level: No data Relative Foreshore Level: No data

Beach Type: Compacted stone, sand and mud Defence Type: Revetment Revetment Type: Rock 3-6 t / Concrete (precast) Defence Description: Linear rock and precast concrete block revetment Design Standard: Unknown

NFCDD Element and Survey Data (ref Appendix II) Element Type Sub-type Material Revetment Slope Width Condition Weighting 1 CB ------2 CS Foreshore Sand - - - 2 2 Rock/ 3 Fl Revetment - - - 2-3 8 Concrete Rock/ 4 C Revetment - - - 2-3 8 Concrete Residual life 20-50 Urgency Routine Overall Condition 3 Data Quality 1

Overall Structure Condition (Con) 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 V Poor/Failed

RISK ASSESSMENT Score: 12-18 Assessment Rating: Low Change from previous inspection: No change from last inspection

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 136 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

INSPECTION NOTES

Inspected Date Comments by

The sections of rock armour at either end appear to be structurally sound but the water did not leave the outer sections of the barrier during the inspection and toe conditions here could not be ascertained. The central section looked steep although the size of the blocks (estimated weight 20-25 tonnes) means they are unlikely to be moved under storm conditions. The structure is in reasonable July 2001 CECS condition for its age.

The foreshore and channel position appear to be generally stable at the present time, but the defences may be vulnerable to major changes in the estuary regime. The pocket beach in front of Hodbarrow Point provides a ‘sink’ for sediment pushed into the estuary from offshore. Sept 2002 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. April 2003 CECS No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. June 2004 CEUK No noticeable change observed from previous inspection. No change observed to condition of structure but storms have caused erosion of Jan 2005 CEUK dunes and slight drawdown of beach in pocket beach behind Hodbarrow Point. Sept 2005 CEUK Pocket beach behind Hodbarrow Point has recovered otherwise no change No noticeable change in defence condition observed from previous inspection – Sept 2007 CEUK beach levels appear locally lower in vicinity of Hodbarrow Point. Wind blown sand covering lower faces of dunes at Hodbarrow Point, otherwise no Mar 2008 CEUK noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Marginally higher beach levels in front of dunes at Hodbarrow Point, otherwise no May 2009 CEUK noticeable change observed from previous inspection. Due to extremely inclement weather conditions, the inspection was curtailed at July 2010 CEUK the western limit of the Haverigg Outer Barrier. No change observed from previous inspection. No maintenance required. Capita Feb 2011 Continue inspection and monitoring as recommended in previous report. Symonds Low water inspection by boat still required to complete. No change observed from previous inspection. Capita Continue annual inspections from the top of the structure and five yearly Feb 2012 Symonds inspections from the seaward side. Low water inspection completed by hovercraft – next due in 2017 Sept 2012 CEUK No change in condition observed. It is understood that waters from the impounded lagoon were pumped out to sea over the crest of the defences during the past 12months. Additional photos were recorded to ascertain locations where this may have taken place. Generally there was no obvious change in the condition of the structure but disturbance of the crest was observed on the west side of the lighthouse [108] Oct 2013 CEUK and also further to the west [109, 110 & 111] at new inspection locations CBC 206b and 206a. In these locations the defence is made up of large concrete blocks and there were no signs that they had been destabilised, however any change could only be discerned by carrying out a repeat boat inspection.

Oct 2014 CEUK No change in conditions observed. Oct 2015 CEUK No change in conditions observed. July 2016 CEUK No change in conditions observed. Heavy Rain

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 137 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

PHOTOGRAPHS JULY 2016 Waypoint Location Photo Nos. (CBC_2016_1_***) CBC205 West end of Outer barrier Change from armour to concrete block CBC206 027 028 protection in Outer Barrier CBC206a Stone platform 025 026

CBC206b Crest disturbance/loose stone 114 115 CBC207 Lighthouse on Outer Barrier 021 022 023 024 CBC207a Interface of block/armour east 019 020 CBC208 East end of outer barrier 017 018

Frame CBC_2016_1_029 Frame CBC_2016_1_027

Frame CBC_2016_1_120 Frame CBC_2016_1_018

STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 138 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

ON-GOING MONITORING/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS No maintenance actions arising.

The proposed SMP2 Policy is “Hold The Line” in the short term; Managed Re-Alignment if the defences cannot justifiably be maintained, in the medium term and “Hold The Line” on a setback alignment in the long term. Current management practice accords with this policy.

No formal topographic monitoring identified for this section, although LIDAR data and hydrographic survey data to be collected under NWRMP should be used together with the regular inspections to inform future defence management decisions.

On-going data collection requirements:  Inspection of defences on a minimum annual frequency;  Repeat toe inspection in 2017, as previously recommended by CEUK/Capita. With the advancements in technology it would be suggested that a drone survey to provide both a grid of levels and detailed photos would most appropriately be employed for this.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 139 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 CONCLUSIONS

The inspection carried out in July 2016 has provided a further update on the condition of coastal defences across the Copeland frontage and provides for direct comparison with previous surveys.

The inspection was carried out from south to north with variable weather conditions applying during the two Winds were generally moderate to fresh breeze during the first day with heavy rain during the majority of the day, which impacted on the quality of photographs taken. On the second day conditions were brighter, mostly sunny with gentle to moderate breezes from a westerly direction.

As in previous reports this report has noted changes that have occurred relative to previous conditions applying, the completion of repairs to existing defences and has identified outstanding or new defects in defences that require attention.

The following specific observations in relation to defence condition were noted during the inspection:

 Local lowering of beach levels at the northern terminal end of the defences at Parton (7938a);  Continued lack of mobile sediments across the Network Rail frontage south of Redness Point and erosion of tipped slag deposits exposing a further section of railway wall (7937);  Toe collapse of a small section of armour adjacent to the northern slipway at Whitehaven North beach, where loss of fine sediments had exposed underlying hard slag (7936);  Some further erosion of slag cliffs at Whitehaven South Beach (7934);  Completion of facing works to outlet channel and sea wall return in Rottington Beck and provision of further rock toe protection (7932);  Repairs to slipway at St Bees (7932);  Provision of sandstone boulders to protect cliff below café at St Bees (7931);  Further localised (probably run-off induced) slippage to face of boulder clay cliffs along St Bees Golf course (7929);  Return of mobile sediments along toe of Network Rail defences at Ancient Fishgarth (7927);  Some localised erosion to face of boulder clay cliffs at Ancient Fishgarth (7927);  Continued construction/refurbishment of beach properties at Coulderton with erection of new crest defences (7926);  Little change in condition of boulder clay cliffs at Nethertown Knoll (7925);  Extension of Network Rail defences to toe of railway embankment south of Braystones station (7922);  Continued local beach management in front of properties at Braystones including local excavation by residents of shingle beach and mounding in front of properties (7922);  Use of beach shingle to fill new gabion defences in front of individual property south of Braystones station (7922);  Beach formations maintaining discharge channel from Whitrigg Beck parallel to the coast at Seascale (7917);  Localised terminal erosion around upper gabion defences at Seascale2 (7916);  Outfall discharges through rock armour at Ravenglass2 (7912);  Washout of clay fill placed behind northerly section of “Pendine” blocks at Stubb Place, Bootle (7906); and  Erosion of clay fill placed beyond southerly end of defences at Stubb Place, Bootle (7906).

The following existing defects remain, in relation to frontages under Copeland Borough Council’s jurisdiction:

 Continued potential for erosion at terminal end of gabions at Parton (7938a), although new works were constructed in 2014;  Localised voiding in armour and need for block replacement at Parton (7938a) and Whitehaven North Beach (7936);  Missing timber groyne planks, abraded timber piles and damaged sections of groynes at St Bees Promenade (7932);  Localised spalling and cracks to promenade and edge walls at St Bees Promenade/Seacote Hotel (7931/32);  Generally dilapidated defences at Seamill (7928);  Damaged revetment facing to Nethertown Car Park (7921); and  Continued risk to unprotected sections of gabions at Seascale Car Park (7921).

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 140 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Based on the above the risk assessments previously carried out, in accordance with agreed Cell 11 methodology (ref Appendix III), have been reviewed. From 2015 to 2016 there has been no change in the overall condition assessment for any of the frontages inspected, although there was a slight improvement noted with the provision of boulders to the cliff below the café at St. Bees. The results of this assessment are provided in the attached spreadsheet (Copeland HLT 6B Summary 07-16.xls), and are presented in Table 4.1 below.

Appendix IV contains charts that illustrate the following:

 Percentage of defence lengths in each condition category, out of the total defence length;  Percentage of defence lengths in each risk rating category, out of the total defence length;  Percentage of defence lengths in each residual life category, out of the total defence length; and  Number of defence lengths in each residual life category, out of the total defence length.

Apart from the above remedial works, on-going monitoring of defence and foreshore condition is recommended to be carried out. Collection of beach profile data by the Authority and other Agencies, under the North West Regional Monitoring Programme (NWRMP) is on-going and any recommended modifications or adjustments to this monitoring are identified in the separate annual monitoring report.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 141 Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016 Table 4.1: COPELAND BC - HIGH LEVEL TARGET 6B SUMMARY (Revised July 2016) CPSE Ref. Structure Responsibility Nature Residual Life Status - Status - Significance Risk Risk level No. Expectancy Condition Deterioration Score Name Length (210/..) 1 (m) (yrs)

7938a Parton 350 Copeland BC Rock Revetment/Gabion Wall 20-50 2-3 2 3 12-18 Low 7938 Redness Point to Parton 1300 Network Rail Vertical Masonry Wall with/without toe protection 20-50 3 2 5 30 Medium Whitehaven North Beach to 7937 200 Network Rail/Copeland BC? Masonry wall 20-50 3 2 5 30 Medium Redness Point 7936 Whitehaven North Beach 500 Copeland BC Rock Revetment 20-50 2-3 2 4 16-24 Low-Medium 7935 Whitehaven Harbour 620 Whitehaven Harbour Vertical Harbour Wall 20-50 2 2 5 20 Low 7934 Whitehaven South Beach 240 Copeland BC Gabion Wall 0-5 4-5 3 2 24-30 Medium 7933 Disused Mine at Arrowthwait 100 Copeland BC Masonry wall 10-20 3 2 3 18 Low 7932 St Bees 320 Copeland BC Concrete Sea Wall 20-50 3 2 3 18 Low 7931 Seacote Hotel St Bees 2 80 Private Concrete Sea Wall 20-50 3 3 3 27 Medium 7930 Seacote Hotel St Bees 1 40 Private Rock Revetment 20-50 2-3 3 2-3 12-27 Low-Medium 7929 St Bees Golf Course 970 Private Clay cliff frontage 20-50 3 2 2 12 Low

Seamill (N of Ancient 7928 200 St Bees Parish Council Gabion/Rock Revetment 3-4 3 Fishgarth) 10-20 3 27-36 Medium 7927 Ancient Fishgarth 400 Network Rail Clay cliff with miscellaneous toe/slope protection 10-20 3-4 2 5 30-40 Medium 7926 Nethertown to St Bees 3170 Network Rail Clay cliff with miscellaneous toe/slope protection 20-50 1-3 2-3 5 10-45 Low-High 7925 Nethertown 2 340 Network Rail/Copeland BC? Clay cliff frontage 20-50 3 2 3 18 Low

7924 Nethertown 1 35 Private Vertical Property Walls 20-50 3 2 3 18 Low 7923 Nethertown Shore Car Park 75 Copeland BC Gabion Wall and Concrete Slabbing 20-50 4 2 2 16 Low Clay Cliff 2-3 2 5 20-30 Low-Medium 7922 Braystones to Nethertown 2420 Network Rail/Copeland BC? 20-50 Rock / concrete facings 2 2 5 20 Low 7921 Sellafield Station 425 Network Rail Rock Revetment 20-50 3 2 5 30 Medium 7917 Seascale Shore Car Park 425 Copeland BC Gabion Wall 10-20 3 2 3 18 Low 7916 Seascale 2 215 Copeland BC Concrete Sea Wall 5-10 3 2 4 24 Medium 7915 Seascale 1 90 Copeland BC Stepped Concrete Revetment 10-20 3 2 4 24 Medium 7914 South of Seascale 170 Copeland BC Masonry wall and cliff 20-50 5 2 2 20 Low 7913 Ravenglass to Low Saltcoats 360 Network Rail Masonry Revetment 20-50 3 2 5 30 Medium 7912 Ravenglass 2 200 Environment Agency? Armour wall 20-50 2 2 4 16 Low 7911 Ravenglass 1 300 Private Vertical Property Walls 20-50 3 2 4 24 Medium 7910 Roman Fort To Ravenglass 570 Network Rail Masonry wall 20-50 4 2 5 40 Medium 7909 Brighouse to Roman Fort, 370 Network Rail Masonry/Rock Armour revetment 20-50 3 2 5 30 Medium 7906 StubbRavenglass Place, Bootle 215 Cumbria CC Concrete block wall 10-20 4 3 3 36 Medium Private Gabion Walls 2 2 3 12 Low 7903 Hartrees Hill (Silecroft) 840 Private Clay cliff frontage (Intermediate) 10-20 3 2 3 18 Low Copeland BC Clay cliff frontage 3 2 2 12 Low Rock Revetment 2 2 4 16 Low 7902 Haverigg 800 Copeland BC 20-50 Dunes 2 2 3 12 Low Rock Revetment 3 2 3 18 Low 7902a Haverigg Outer Barrier 2400 Unknown 20-50 Precast Block Revetment 2 2 3 12 Low

Total Length 18740 metres 1 Based on continuing maintenance of existing defences. Where there are different types of defence within a frontage, the minimum life is estimated

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 142

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations provided in previous reports have been amended arising from the review of conditions and inspection carried out. Recommendations have been split into primary and secondary, with primary recommendations to be carried out as a matter of priority and secondary recommendations, subject to resource availability:

The following primary recommendations are made:

 The Authority to continue the beach monitoring being carried out under NWRMP arrangements, modified as per the accompanying annual monitoring report, with specifically Network Rail, encouraged to participate and contribute to the on-going monitoring arrangements.

 Maintenance works to be completed at the earliest opportunity, as identified in Table 5 above, particularly:

 Parton – Replacement of moved armour;  Whitehaven North Beach – Replacement of moved armour; and  St Bees (Groynes) – Completion of reinstatement of missing planks.

 Continuation of discussions and dialogue already commenced with regard to managing defences at:

 Seacote Hotel, St Bees;  Stubb Place, Bootle; and  Seamill/Ancient Fishgarth.  Confirmation of defence responsibility and riparian ownership at Seascale Shore Car Park and Ravenglass;  Complete studies to investigate impacts of erosion at Whitehaven South Beach and potential effects on Harbour breakwater.

Secondary recommendations comprise:

 The conclusions from this and previous reports undertaken in accordance with previous recommendations should be used as the basis for on-going investigation and examination of future management actions at:

 St Bees (7930-32);  Seamill (7928);  Nethertown Car Park (7923); and  Seascale (7915-7917).

 The opening up of dialogue with other parties’ with coastal defence and/or other responsibilities with regard to confirming specific responsibilities, development of appropriate future management actions, shared monitoring. This provides the potential in some cases for shared costs or contributions to the cost of on- going monitoring, studies, works etc. Specifically in respect of:

 Network Rail at Ravenglass, Nethertown, Braystones, Whitehaven to Parton;  Local landowners at St Bees, Seamill and Silecroft;  Land Restoration Trust and Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners at Whitehaven South Beach;  RNLI at St Bees;  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority or other riparian landowners at Seascale; and  Environment Agency at Ravenglass.

 Additional monitoring of the retaining wall and access road at Nethertown car park, as identified in previous reports, should be instigated

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 143

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

In addition the following specific arrangements arise out of the SMP2 policies that have been identified and need to be considered in relation to on-going defence management:

 Generally a policy of “No Active Intervention” is to apply across the Ancient Fishgarth to Braystones frontage (7922-7927) and the Ravenglass to Brighouse frontages (7909-10) other than work required to safeguard the integrity of the railway, apart from where beach/cliff top properties are at risk (Coulderton, Nethertown and Braystones where a policy of “Managed Re-alignment” will apply in the short term (0-20 years) to allow development of an adaptation strategy;  No further development to be allowed in relation to beach developments at Coulderton (7926) and Nethertown to Braystones (7925-7922). It should be additionally noted here that planning permission was granted for re-development of a plot at Coulderton (now being constructed), which is against the recommendations of the SMP2 (Halcrow, 2011) and that properties continue to be refurbished/re-constructed at Braystones following the 2013-14 winter storms;  A policy of “No Active Intervention” is to apply across the Whitehaven South Beach frontage (7934) other than work necessary to safeguard the integrity of the Harbour Piers;  A policy of “Hold the Line” is to apply to the Mine at Arrowthwaite (7933) until such time that investment in defences cannot be justified, after which the policy reverts to “No Active Intervention”;  A policy of “Hold the Line” is to apply to the Haverigg Outer Barrier (7902a) in the short term; Managed Re- Alignment, if the defences cannot justifiably be maintained, in the medium term and “Hold The Line” on a setback alignment in the long term;  A policy of “Hold the Line” is to apply across the Silecroft frontage (7903), subject to future works being privately funded and provided they do not adversely impact process behaviour;  A policy of “Managed Re-alignment” is to apply across the Stubb Place, Bootle frontage (7906) with maintenance work to safeguard the integrity of the highway carried out in the short term (0-20 years) but longer term highway re-alignment representing the most probable solution;  A policy of “No Active Intervention” is to apply across the frontage South of Seascale (7914);  A policy of “No Active Intervention” is to apply across the St Bees Golf Club and Seacote Hotel St Bees 1 frontage (7929/30); and  Elsewhere Policies of “Hold the Line” are generally applicable.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 144

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

5 REFERENCES

 Capita Symonds, February 2011. Copeland Coastal Inspections 2010;  Capita Symonds, March 2012. Copeland Coastal Inspections 2012;  Capita Symonds, April 2012. Stubb Place Coast Protection Appraisal;  Capita Symonds, May 2012. Sea Mill Coast Protection Options Appraisal;  Coastal Engineering UK Ltd, October 2007 (Revised March 2008). Copeland Borough Council, Annual Coastal Defence Monitoring Supplementary Report;.  Coastal Engineering UK Ltd, September 2010. Copeland Borough Council, Annual Coastal Defence Inspection Report July 2010;  Coastal Engineering UK Ltd, February 2013. Copeland Borough Council, Annual Coastal Monitoring Inspection September 2012;  Coastal Engineering UK Ltd, December 2013. Copeland Borough Council, Annual Coastal Monitoring Inspection October 2013;  Coastal Engineering UK Ltd, February 2015. Copeland Borough Council, Annual Coastal Monitoring Inspection October 2014;  Coastal Engineering UK Ltd, December 2015. Copeland Borough Council, Annual Coastal Monitoring Inspection October 2015.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 145

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Appendix I: Fixed Photograph Positions

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 146

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

1km

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 147

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

1km

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 148

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

1km

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 149

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

1km

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

1km

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 151

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Appendix II: Glossary of Terms used on Inspection Record Forms

Asset Type

All structures are split into asset types as set out by EA and the acronyms used on the forms have the following meanings:

CB Channel Bed – approximately below mean low water. No other information is recorded for channel beds CS Channel side – low water to highest tide level Fl Face Inner – a roughly vertical element of the structure that is orientated to face towards the sea Berm A roughly horizontal element of the structure FO Face Outer – a roughly vertical element of the structure that is orientated to face away from the sea FC Flood Crest – the highest element of the structure

Sub-type Sub-types are descriptions of the category of the structure, e.g. foreshore, wall, revetment

Materiel Material refers to the construction of the element, e.g. concrete, rock etc.

Revetment NFCDD uses the term revetment to refer to a facing material that is attached to the element

Slope Slopes recorded for element are approximate and established by eye during visual assessment

Width Widths are approximate and estimated by eye during the inspection

Condition Condition grades are as described in Appendix III

Weightings Weightings are as set out by EA as follows:

Weighting Title Description Number Very Minor 1 Elements that relate to non-flood or non-erosion risk reduction. However such elements may be important to other aspects of asset performance. 2 An element that is not part of the engineered structure but does have a function connected with flood or erosion risk reduction. Important 3 An element that is integral to the asset but has limited function in reducing flood or (Low) erosion risk. 4 An element that is part of the asset that works together with other major elements to reduce flood or erosion risk. Important 5 Part of the asset, which by its failure will not cause the asset to fail. However, may (Medium) lead to failure over a long period of time. Important 6 An element which when it fails will cause the structure to fail over a long period of (High) time (up to a year). 7 An element which when it fails will cause the structure to fail, not immediately, but prior to the next inspection date. Near-critical 8 An element which when it fails will cause the structure to fail, not immediately but within 3 months. Critical 9 An element which when is fails will cause the structure as a whole to fail immediately.

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 152

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Appendix III: Cell 11 Risk Assessment Methodology

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 153

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

CELL 11 - ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF EROSION AND FLOODING FOR HLT6b REPORTING

Introduction and Methodology The rationale behind the assessment is based upon the three criteria given by DEFRA relating to Target 6. The guidelines are that the assessment of defences with regard to the risk of coastal erosion should take into account nature, status and Consequence.

Status The status of the defence is an indication of the condition of the asset, asset being defined as a defence length and coded using DEFRA's system. This will ensure compatibility with "database identified assets" as required by the target. The assessment of condition is to be based upon those identified in the Environment Agency publication "National Sea & River Defence Surveys - Condition Assessment Manual".

Defence Lengths can score as follows: 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 Very Poor/Failed

The status of the asset should also reflect the deterioration rate of the structure as follows: 1 None/Improving 2 Low 3 Medium 4 High

Nature The nature of the defence can be used to reflect the type of defence either Hard or Soft. Identification of soft defences gives credence to the improving status identified above as a deterioration rate.

Consequence The Consequence of the defence length reflects the infrastructure the defence length protects. The description of land use band defined within DEFRA’s "Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance: Economic Appraisal" is summarised below and is the method used for defining Consequence for the purpose of this risk assessment.

Land Use Band Score Indicative range of housing units / km of coastline A 5 ≥ 50 B 4 ≥ 25 to < 50 C 3 ≥ 5 to < 25 D 2 ≥1.25 to < 5 E 1 < 1.25

Assessment of Risk of Coastal Erosion The level of risk can be identified for an individual defence length by scoring the product of the above parameters such that:

Low Risk 0 to 10 Medium Risk > 10 to ≤ 40 High Risk > 40

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 154

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Variations adopted for Copeland Borough Council Defence Risk Assessment

Risk is defined as the combination of the likelihood of an event occurring (probability) and the consequences associated with that event, if it occurs.

Within the above risk assessment the probability of the event is defined by the status of the defence length i.e. its present condition and its rate of deterioration, and its nature.

Given that the nature of the defence is not scored it is important that there is a differentiation between an improving asset and one that is essentially stable as hard defences cannot by their nature improve but soft defences e.g. beaches, saltmarsh, dunes etc. can. Separate categories for improving defences and no rate of deterioration have therefore been adopted, as follows.

1 Improving 2 None/Minimal 3 Low 4 Medium 5 High

The Consequence indicator relates to the consequences if the coastal defences were breached or removed. As well as the equivalent housing units’ indicator, the following additional descriptive indicators are provided ex FCDPAG3, Table 6.2.

Land Use Band Score Assets at Risk

A 5 Erosion or flooding of intensively developed urban areas and/or loss of major infrastructure B 4 Erosion or flooding of less developed urban areas with/without some high grade agricultural land and associated properties and/or internationally designated sites of environmental importance C 3 Erosion or flooding of local developments including caravan sites or temporary structures or high grade agricultural land and/or nationally designated sites of environmental importance D 2 Erosion or flooding of mixed grade agricultural land and associated properties and/or locally designated sites of environmental importance E 1 Erosion or flooding of low grade agricultural land and associated or occasional properties or sites of no designated environmental importance

Assessment of Risk of Coastal Erosion

Under the above system the maximum score for a defence length will be 125 compared to 100 under the original system. The following rationale for determining whether a defence length should be considered as high, medium or low risk is proposed:

 If a defence length scores ≤ 2 in both status scores it should be considered as low risk; and  For a defence length to be high risk both status scores should be > 3 and Consequence score should be ≥ 3

Low Risk ≤20 Medium Risk > 20 to ≤ 45 High Risk > 45

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 155

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Appendix IV: Defence Length Charts

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 156

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Defence Lengths by Conditon Percentage of total length of defence 2% 7% 10%

2 81% 3 4

Defence Lengths by Risk Rating Percentage of total length of defence

17% 41%

42% Low Medium

High

Defence Lengths by Residual Life Percentage of total length of defence 1%1% 12%

0-5 85% 5-10 10-20

20-50

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 157

Copeland Borough Council Coastal Defence Monitoring Inspection July 2016

Defence Lengths by Residual Life Number of defence lengths

1 1 7

0-5 23 5-10

10-20

20-50

Coastal Engineering UK Ltd 158