APPENDIX

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Shoreline Management Plan 2 Mid Term Review

Management Area Reports

Client: Cornwall Council

Reference: WATPB4338R001D01 Revision: 02/Draft Date: 21 September 2016

O p e n

HASKONINGDHV UK LTD.

Stratus House Emperor Way Exeter

EX1 3QS Water VAT registration number: 792428892

+44 1392 447999 T +44 1392 446148 F [email protected] E royalhaskoningdhv.com W

Document title: Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Shoreline Management Plan 2 Mid Term Review

Document short title: Reference: WATPB4338R001D01 Revision: 02/Draft Date: 21 September 2016 Project name: Shoreline Management Plan 2 Project number: PB4338 Author(s): Greg Guthrie, Julie Dunstan

Drafted by: Julie Dunstan

Checked by: Greg Guthrie

Date / initials:

Approved by:

Date / initials:

Classification Open

Disclaimer No part of these specifications/printed matter may be reproduced and/or published by print, photocopy, microfilm or by any other means, without the prior written permission of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd.; nor may they be used, without such permission, for any purposes other than that for which they were produced. HaskoningDHV UK Ltd. accepts no responsibility or liability for these specifications/printed matter to any party other than the persons by whom it was commissioned and as concluded under that Appointment. The quality management system of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd. has been certified in accordance with ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001.

21 September 2016 WATPB4338R001D01 i

O p e n

Appendix

MA 01 Rame Head to Downderry MA 02 Downderry and Seaton MA 03 Seaton to Pencarrow Head MA 06 Gribben Head to Par Docks MA 07 Par Docks to Black Head MA 08 Black Head to Dodman Point MA 09 Veryan Bay MA 11 Lower Fal MA 12 Upper Fal MA 13 Pendennis Point to Rosemullion Head MA 15 Lizard East (Nare Point to Lizard Point) MA 16 Lizard West (Lizard Point to Baulk Head) MA 17 Baulk Head to Trewavas Head MA 18 Trewavas Head to The Greeb MA 19 Marazion to Longrock MA 20 Longrock to Penzance MA 21 Penzance and Newlyn (Albert Pier to Sandy Cove) MA 27 Hayle Estuary MA 29 Godrevy Point to St Agnes Head MA 30 St Agnes Head to Pentire Point West MA 31 Fistral Bay and Crantock MA 32 Newquay Bay MA 33 Trevelgue Head to Trevose Head MA 34 Trevose Head to Stepper Point MA 35 Camel Estuary (Stepper Point to Trebetherick Point) MA 36 Trebetherick Point to Pentire Point MA 37 Pentire Point to Boscastle MA 38 Boscastle to Wanson Mouth MA 39 Wanson Mouth to Higher Longbeak MA 40 Higher Longbeak to Sharpnose Point

21 September 2016 WATPB4338R001D01 ii

O p e n

List of Acronyms CC Cornwall Council EA Environment Agency CCc Cornwall Council Coastal CCh Cornwall Council Highways CCp Cornwall Council Planning HE Historic England NE Natural England PCO Plymouth Coastal Observatory RNLI Royal National Lifeboat Institution NT National Trust SWW South West Water POL Policy INV Involvement Gst General study MON Monitoring Rst Risk Study Sch Scheme

21 September 2016 WATPB4338R001D01 iii

MA 01

Rame Head to Downderry

O p e n

Location Reference: Rame Head to Downderry Management Area reference: MA 01 Policy Development Zone: PDZ1

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA01

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit Policy Plan 2025 2055 2105 Comment Undefended cliffs Meets objectives for SSSIs, AONB and Heritage 1.1 NAI NAI NAI and beach Coast Initially maintain hold the line approach to protect heritage interests and community. Manage the longer term risks, reduce reliance on defences and return to 1.2 Portwrinkle HTL MR MR a more naturally functioning coastline through introduction of managed realignment during epochs 2 & 3. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI for natural hard cliff coastline and beaches, HTL at Portwrinkle Medium term NAI for natural hard cliff coastline and beaches, MR at Portwrinkle Long term NAI for hard cliff coastline, NAI at Portwrinkle

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: The SMP identifies that with climate change and particularly sea level rise, there will be increased pressure on defences with little economic justification for their continued management. This will have significant impacts on Portwrinkle village and historic values of the area. While policies suggest change moving from epoch 1 to epoch 2 (around 2025) from HTL to MR, it is really the process of change in terms of moving from present defence positions to a more sustainable approach to risk management that is being recommended.

IMPLICATIONS: There is significant potential impact on the main road and access through the village and around the harbour area. This may also impact on properties within the core conservation area.

Loss of beaches and beach carparks are seen as having a significant impact on the community and the broader tourism interests in the area.

The main issue identified by the SMP2 is the lack of economic justification for continued defence management. Local management of these defences is not seen as having a significant impact on the wider area.

However, with sea level rise the harbour area will provide less protection and use of the harbour piers will become more difficult and limited.

There is a need recommended within the SMP for monitoring and for engagement with the community and organisations with interests in the area to develop a longer term adaptation plan. This needs to be taken forward in the understanding that maintaining defences may influence the development of beaches around the village and that therefore there will be a need for change.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA01

O p e n

PROGRESS REVIEW Monitoring of beach change and cliff erosion is critical in advising the time scales of change. At present this area is not understood to be included with the Plymouth Coastal Observatory monitoring programme. Apart from publication of the SMP, no further action has been undertaken in terms of earlier community involvement.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA01

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 1/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Beach monitoring CCc, EA On-going 1/MON2/CCc Defences CCc Defence and harbour structures inspection and monitoring EA, harbour users On-going 1/INV1/CCp Consultation CCp Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness CCc, community 2016 with the community 1/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Consult, agree and define as a CCMA Community, CCc, CCh, HE. 2017 1/INV2/CCp Adaptation CCp Review of long term adaptation plan for the area CCc, community, CCh, HE, NE, 2020 planning EA, (multi agency)

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA01

MA 02

Downderry and Seaton

O p e n

Location reference: Downderry and Seaton Management Area Reference: MA 02 Policy Development Zone: PDZ1

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA02

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit Policy Plan 2025 2055 2105 Comment Commitment from Cornwall Council to ongoing monitoring of the ‘Action Line’, to provide an ongoing re-assurance to the community. Most recent monitoring 2.1 Downderry East NAI NAI NAI indicates maximum erosion of around 300mm over 5 years. Private defences have slowed down natural rates of erosion Initially hold defences during epoch 1, continuing SMP1 policy. Longer term objective is to allow coast to adjust in medium to longer term through managed Downderry West 2.2 HTL MR MR realignment. This is a coastal change area and would & Seaton require support through the land use planning system to manage the relocation of development away from the risk zone over time. The preferred plan requires commitment to early realignment of the road and promotes robust resilience to flooding. Any realignment undertaken should not 2.3 Seaton Beach MR NAI NAI reduce the capacity of the river to discharge. Return to naturally functioning frontage is long term goal.

Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day Manage erosion risks at Downderry west through continued coast protection, allow natural slower erosion at Downderry east of Beach Hill. Monitor erosion rates / beach levels. Initiate managed realignment at Seaton. Medium term Continue NAI at Downderry east, based on monitoring. Move to MR for Downderry west. NAI at Seaton following realignment in epoch 1. Long term Continue NAI at Downderry east, based on monitoring. Continue MR for Downderry west. NAI at Seaton.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: The SMP highlights the increasing pressure on all these frontages, principally due to sea level rise. As this occurs it will be more difficult to maintain existing defence and there is likely to be increasing erosion over undefended areas. Assessing future economic justification, it seems unlikely that there would be a case for intervention.

Over the whole frontage, therefore, the SMP is recommending moving towards a policy of change and managed realignment. This underlying intent is reflected in different ways across the three policy units. Specifically, within Policy Unit 2.1, the policy is for NAI, although consideration might be given to improvement to private defences. From previous studies the aim within the SMP actions is to ensure that residents are aware of the rate of retreat of the cliffs so that individual decisions can be made.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA02

O p e n

Within the central policy unit (2.2) the intent would be to maintain the existing defence while alternative approaches in terms of critical transport needs are addressed. This needs to be considered alongside the potential need of realigning the road within Policy Unit 2.3.

Within all areas as erosion and realignment takes place, so there is a risk to properties. The SMP recommends that the area should be considered a Coastal Change Management Area and through this planning is developed to allow realignment at the coast.

IMPLICATIONS: The medium term risk to the coastal road needs to be considered in relation to the transport network and access to properties.

The need to consider how communities are sustained, in terms of their overall integrity and potential for roll back of development into the hinterland behind the village.

Medium to long term loss of individual properties, with the need to raise awareness and improved understanding of erosion rates.

PROGRESS REVIEW This area is included within the Plymouth Coastal Observatory monitoring programme; however, it is not known to what degree this information has been made available or highlighted to the public.

Works were undertaken to maintain and improve defences to the highway post 2014 storms. It is not known to what degree the SMP policy was taken into account when these works were undertaken and therefore the degree to which future realignment was considered.

An analysis of overtopping was undertaken of the area of Seaton Beach post 2014 storms.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA02

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 2/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Monitoring of beach levels and cliff erosion. CCc, EA On-going Report on erosion rates. 2/MON2/CCh Defences CCh Monitoring and review of defence condition and residual life of CCc, EA On-going structures. 2/INV1/CCc Consultation CCc Confirm arrangements for informing individuals on erosion rates Community 2017 and discussion of implications 2/Rst1/CCc Study CCc Undertake a geomorphological review of Seaton beach to CCh, EA 2016 (Seaton Beach examine short term vulnerabilities and predict longer term PU2.3) change. Informing current and future management. 2/Gst1/CCh Study CCh Review and develop medium to long term management study of CCc, EA 2017 coastal defence in relation to network planning and future response planning to defences. 2/sch1/CCh Defence CCh Review and undertake as required local improvements to crest CCc, EA 2017 (Seaton Beach improvement wall at Seaton Beach PU2.3) 2/Rst2/EA Study EA Review flood risk and potential mitigation in relation to present CCc, CCh 2018 and future planning for management of the highway. 2/POL1/ CCp Policy CCp Consult, agree and define the whole Management Area as a CCc, CCh, EA, Community 2018 CCMA, developing CCMA plan following review of highway management (2/Gst1/Cornwall Council Highways).

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA02

MA 03

Seaton to Pencarrow Head

O p e n

Location Reference: Seaton to Pencarrow Head Management Area Reference: MA 03 Policy Development Zone: PDZ1

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA03

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit Policy Plan 2025 2055 2105 Comment Undefended cliffs Meets objectives of Heritage Coast, AONB and SSSI 3.1 NAI NAI NAI and beaches designations. NAI should not constrain regeneration of area but 3.2 Millendreath NAI NAI NAI facilitate rollback of the frontage to accommodate coastal squeeze. Continue to monitor. Possible study required in Epoch 1 regarding cliff 3.3 Plaidy HTL NAI NAI stability. East and West Undertake further study to identify potential solutions to 3.4 HTL HTL HTL Looe alleviate increasing flood risk. Upper Estuary Not previously considered in SMP1. Meet objectives 3.5 (East and West NAI NAI NAI relating to natural processes. Limited infrastructure at Looe Rivers) risk from flooding. Manage erosion risks through gradual adaptation from holding defences to NAI. No significant risk to 3.6 Hannafore HTL MR NAI properties over SMP timeframe under NAI. Monitor recession rates with regard to road access. 3.7 Talland NAI NAI NAI No intervention necessary, erosion risks are low. Limited scope for any realignment. Erosion risks very low due to hard geology of frontage. Recent 3.8 Polperro HTL HTL HTL improvements to standard of flood protection due to installation of new tide gates. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI for undefended cliffs and upper rivers, Millendreath and Talland; HTL at Plaidy, Looe, Hannafore and Polperro. Medium term NAI for undefended cliffs and upper rivers, Plaidy, Millendreath and Talland; HTL at Looe and Polperro. MR at Hannafore. Allow possible consideration of ATL at Looe to allow different technical solutions to be assessed. Long term NAI for undefended cliffs and upper rivers, Plaidy, Millendreath, Hannafore and Talland; HTL at Looe and Polperro.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: Generally over much of the management unit there is natural undefended cliffs and shoreline. The intent within the SMP is to maintain this natural coast line with a policy of NAI. As importantly there are significant areas of development as in locations such as Looe, Millendreath, Plaidy, Hannafore and Polperro In each of these, while the SMP highlights specific erosion and flood risks, the overall intent is to maintain these communities. However, quite specifically the SMP identified two areas where there is the potential need for adaptation.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA03

O p e n

The first such area is at Plaidy. There is to the midsection of the Policy Unit (3.3) a section of maintained rock armour protection to the cliff behind. Reviewing this within the information available to the SMP, there were questions raised as to the need for this defence structure, with the potential to restore this section of shoreline to a more natural condition.

The second area is Hannafore, where there is concern that continuing defence, with the need then to raise the defence in line with sea level rise is probably not justified economically and would potentially impact negatively on the use, value and landscape pf the area. The SMP highlights the need for a more adaptive approach, with potentially the long term development in the area where the shoreline is allowed to develop naturally. This, as identified in the SMP, may need to be developed over time and clearly in concert with the community and the planners. IMPLICATIONS: Potential cost saving and enhancement of the natural shoreline by reducing maintenance of the Plaidy rock revetment.

Potential longer term impact on the community and sea front at Hannafore.

Potential loss of road (Marine Drive) with implications for access to properties and businesses.

Potential longer term higher risk to some sea front properties.

PROGRESS REVIEW These areas have not been considered to be high priority and no immediate actions have been undertaken.

However, should the Plaidy revetment suffer damage then there would be the need to rapidly review the benefit of protection as a reactive measure.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA03

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 3/Rst1/CCc Geotech CCc Review past justification for defence measures. CCp 2016 (Plaidy investigation Undertake further ground investigations into the stability and PU 3.3) erosion risk to the cliff. Reassess the purpose and function of existing defence. 3/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Beach monitoring CCc On-going (Hannafore PU 3.6) 3/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Establish a Coastal Change Management Area, enabling CCc, CCh, 2017 (Hannafore development of a coastal development plan. PU 3.6) 3/Rst1/CCc Risk CCc Undertake boreholes to establish rock head along the frontage CCh 2018 (Hannafore assessment and review potential realignment erosion risk PU 3.6) 3/INV1/CCp Future CCp Develop in conjunction with the community a longer term CCc, CCh, Community 2020 (Hannafore adaptation visioning of the areas, taking account of the recommendations of PU 3.6) plan the SMP and the further investigations in 3/Rst1/Cornwall Council Community

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA03

MA 06

Gribben Head to Par Docks

O p e n

Location Reference: Gribbin Head to Par Docks Management Area reference: MA06 Policy Development Zone: PDZ3

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA06

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit Policy Plan 2025 2055 2105 Comment Continuation of existing policy from SMP1. Meets 6.1 Undefended cliffs NAI NAI NAI objectives relating to the AONB and Heritage coast designations. MR is subject to land-use planners agreeing that a MR MR MR roll back policy is best option for Polkerris. Policy (with (with (with does not preclude landowner of defences and 6.2 Polkerris locali locali locali properties (Duchy of Cornwall) from maintaining sed sed sed harbour and defences in current position in short- HTL) HTL) HTL) medium term but HTL may become unsustainable in long term. Investigate landfill risks and identify possible strategy for MR & dune roll back into hinterland. 6.3 Par Sands NAI MR MR Identification of this area as a ‘Coastal Change Management Area’ within the land use planning system may be necessary. Strategic importance of docks to sustainable regeneration of local area. However some realignment to allow for sea level rise & to improve 6.4 Par Docks MR NAI NAI longer term sustainability should be considered in line with Par Sands and to move toward a non- interventional frontage. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along undefended cliff sections. MR at Polkerris. NAI at Par Sands. MR at Par (0-20 years) Docks Medium term NAI along undefended cliff sections. MR at Polkerris. MR at Par Sands. NAIat Par (20-50 years) Docks. Long term NAI along undefended cliff sections. NAI along undefended cliff sections. MR at (50 -100 years) Polkerris. MR at Par Sands. NAI at Par Docks.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: The area, lying to the eastern side of St Austell Bay, tends to be well protected from more easterly waves but remains exposed to the dominant south westerlies. Both bays, Polkerris and Par Sands, have formed in a shape well attuned to this dominant wave direction, both influenced quite strongly by the respective harbour structures associated with each bay. With sea level, in both cases, the SMP identifies how the shoreline and beach within each of these bays will tend to roll back naturally, potentially some considerable distance.

The SMP identifies the important nature of the whole area represented by the designation of the AONB and the frontages inclusion as part of the Heritage Coast. It is this character of the area which steers the thinking and intent set out in the SMP, while recognising the need to manage the local flood and erosion risk to properties, to the caravan park and to developed areas behind Par Sands and potentially to the transport system, again to the hinterland of Par Sands.

This risk is further complicated by the identification of landfill sites behind Par Sands and the uncertainty associated with the future use of Par Docks.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA06

O p e n

Overall all the intent set out in the SMP is to allow as far as possible the natural development of the shoreline, avoiding future conflict in terms of unsustainable defences needing to be constructed or maintained within the active shoreline zone. This, however, could have significant consequences in terms of the need for adaptation. While there are similarities between the two areas, most particularly in the need to prevent further development that might result in increased conflict with respect to this overall intent (and hence the recommendation that both areas are defined as Coastal Change Management Areas), the way in which change is managed is different.

With respect to Polkerris, this area is an important but quite separate community, where the SMP has shown that a significant part of the settlement, including the Grade II listed Rashleigh Inn, and the adjacent No.15 and adjoining fish curing cellars are at risk from erosion within 50 years. Part of the character of the bay is its close and unconstrained access to the shoreline. The shape of the bay is determined by the presence of the harbour structures (which are also listed structures) and are owned by the Duchy of Cornwall.

In the absence of the Harbour pier, the bay would rapidly change (quite probably too far greater extent than is indicated by the SMP erosion lines), tending to change from the curved bay shape to a straight alignment facing out to the southwest. Already, defences to properties to the south-eastern end of the bay cut across the natural (controlled) bay alignment. In the absence of the Harbour Pier these local property defences would become increasingly unsustainable.

Even with the Harbour Pier maintained, the whole curved bay shape will develop in land, putting existing defences under greater pressure and properties at greater risk. Reinforcing defences will result in loss of the beach and will radically alter the whole character of the settlement. The intent set out in the SMP is to allow retreat of the shoreline in line with sea level rise, managing this process through adaptation of the settlement.

Par Sands is protected and the bay is shaped, certainly over its western end, by the presence of the docks. Management of the harbour structures and, in consequence, the future use of the harbour area will strongly influence the risk and future manner in which risks to the hinterland of Par Sands are managed. The dock area is shown as being potentially at flood risk, certainly over the longer term, and this needs to be considered in relation to any proposed development, together with agreement over future management of the harbour structures.

While resolving this uncertainty in relation to future use of the docks will have a major influence on the management of Par Sands itself, the SMP highlights, independently the need for issues in relation to the management of the main dune frontage.

At present, there are two dune distinct ridges. The landward ridge appears to provide a coherent flood defence to the area of the caravan park behind, while the seaward ridge is not continuous and flooding does occur to the dune slack between the two ridges. The seaward ridge does, however, provide a significant sand reservoir which will tend to roll back and potentially reinforce naturally the rear ridge if allowed to do so. Essentially, there is seen to be potentially significant width in the system for maintenance of a competent defence to be maintained over the short to medium term. The on-going response of the frontage does need to be monitored to determine how this may develop into the longer term and, furthermore, in line with the intent of the SMP to encourage natural development of the shoreline, consideration needs to be given as to how further need for width needs to be accommodated within the area to the back of the rear ridge.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA06

O p e n

Critical to this will be further investigation of nature the identified landfill sites and the need for management future development of and around the caravan park. Potentially, over the next 100 years, the set back of the beach could be as much as 100m. This would impact on the car park to the eastern end of the bay and various facilities along the road to the rear of the dunes.

The area to the rear of the dunes and further inland along the valley running through to Par is shown to be at flood risk. In part, development of this risk will depend on water on high sea levels feeding along the course of the river. The recommendations within the SMP for managed realignment (including the potential need for adaptation of land use) apply principally in relation to the management of the coastal bay. However, quite clearly, in terms of risk management this needs to take account of the potential flood risk via the water course. The SMP highlights the need to consider potential flooding of access to The Par Docks, potentially influencing decisions with respect to use of the area and reemphasises the need to define the area as a Coastal Change Management Area relating to future development of the broader area.

IMPLICATIONS: At Polkerris the SMP highlights the threat and recommends the need for an adaptive approach which would result, in the longer term, in the loss of properties.

In relation to Par Sands, the SMP initial policy of NAI reflects the aim to allow and encourage the natural behaviour of the beach, allowing natural building of a coherent defence. Associated with this however is the need to raise awareness of longer term change and to discuss and develop an adaptive plan for the future use of the area. This in turn is associated with the need to examine further flood risk management over the wider area, raising awareness of other potential flood routes and developing a plan for the area as a whole.

Clearly the development or future use of Par Docks has to be considered alongside the development of a strategy for the wider Par area, taking account of the flood risk to the docks, the risk to access and the regeneration aims of the area as a whole.

PROGRESS REVIEW On-going monitoring of sea level rise and coastal change is essential in helping to assess the timeframe for adaptation and the development of the managed realignment approach. This is being taken forward by PCO. Although present monitoring record is relatively short, there is sufficient evidence at present to allow discussion of the future need for change.

At Polkerris, difficult decisions need to be made in adapting to climate change. At present, it is understood that no actions have been progressed. There is a need therefore to raise the issues identified in the SMP and to start the process by which and adaptive plan may be developed. This needs to highlight the risk of loss of properties.

For Par Sands and Par Docks, it is understood that the Environment Agency have initiated further examination of the actual flood risk and are engaged in discussions with landowners and businesses.

Alongside this, there is the need to clarify the situation over potential redevelopment of the Par docks area, linking the two areas in developing a sustainable approach to the future.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA06

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 6/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Ensure that adequate baseline information is in place to allow CCc, EA 2016 On going on-going long term monitoring of erosion and beach behaviour and sea level rise in relation to coastal flood risk.

6/INV1/CCc Awareness CCc Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness CCp, community, Duchy of 2017 (Polkerris PU of issues posed by climate change and raise awareness of risk Cornwall, EA, NE, 6.2) to property Landowner(s), HE 6/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Developing on 6/INV1/CCc, consult, agree and define CCc, community, Duchy of 2017 management area as a CCMA. Cornwall, EA, Landowner(s),

6/INV2/CCc Adaptation CCc Developing on 6/INV1/Cornwall Council Community, assist with CCp, community, Duchy of 2019 onward (Polkerris PU master plan the development of an adaptive master plan for the area and Cornwall, EA, NE, 6.2) the community. Landowner(s), HE 6/Rst1/EA Risk EA Undertake a detailed assessment of flood risk issues, CCc, CCp, 2016 (Par Sands assessment identifying more immediate issues, longer term risk and the PU 6.3 and understanding of flood pathways. Proving more detailed Par Docks information for residents, businesses and regeneration PU 6.4) planning.

6/INV3/CCc Planning CCc Clarify regeneration opportunities and planning with respect to CCp. EA 2016 (Par Docks regeneration Par Docks. PU 6.4) 6/INV4/CCc Awareness CCc Based on the findings from 6/Rst1/EA, initiate awareness CCp. CCh, EA, Community, 2017 (Par Sands meeting to discuss coastal management and flood risk issues, NE, Landowner(s) and PU 6.3 and with the aim of developing a coherent long term plan for businesses. Par Docks management. PU 6.4) 6/Gst1/CCp Risk and PCO Develop a long term management plan for risk management CCp. CCh, EA, Community, 2018 on going (Par Sands development and development planning, based on outcomes of 6/Rst1/EA, NE, Landowner(s) and PU 6.3 and plan 6/INV3/CCc, 6/INV4/CCc, taking account of need for businesses. Par Docks adaptation. PU 6.4)

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA06

O p e n

6/POL2/CCp Policy CCc Developing on 6/Gst1/Cornwall Council Planning, consult, CCp, CCh, EA, Community, 2018 PU 6.3, PU agree and define management area as a CCMA. NE, Landowner(s) and 6.4 businesses

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA06

MA 07

Par Docks to Black Head

O p e n

Location Reference: Par Docks to Black Head Management Area Reference: MA 07 Policy Development Zone: PDZ3

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA07

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit Policy Plan 2025 2055 2105 Comment Continuation of existing policy from SMP1. Meets 7.1 Undefended cliffs NAI NAI NAI landscape objectives relating to the AONB and Heritage coast designations. Current shoreline position indicated as relatively stable over 100 years. NAI preferred as the policy which will 7.2 Carlyon Bay NAI NAI NAI have no adverse impacts on beach and foreshore. NAI also represents position of coast protection authorities and flood defence authorities. Some realignment of defensive line seaward proposed. Charlestown HTL/ HTL/ HTL/ MR would accommodate consideration of solutions 7.3 (harbour & west MR MR MR other than straightforward hold of existing defensive beach) position. Some erosion of cliff line accepted, issues relate to SW 7.4 Duporth NAI NAI NAI Coast Path. No justification for cliff stabilization / intervention. MR during epochs 1 / 2 to allow retreat from current defensive line and more sustainable shoreline position 7.5 Porthpean MR MR NAI to become established. NAI is objective in longer term.

Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI between Par Docks and Charlestown. HTL/MR to allow adjustment to current defence (0-20 years) approach at Charlestown. NAI at Duporth. HTL at Porthpean. Medium term NAI between Par Docks and Charlestown. HTL/MR to allow adjustment to current defence (20-50 years) approach at Charlestown. NAI at Duporth. MR at Porthpean to move back from unsustainable position. Long term NAI between Par Docks and Charlestown. HTL/MR to allow adjustment to current defence (50 -100 years) approach at Charlestown. NAI at Duporth. NAI at Porthpean to maintain sustainability of realigned shoreline position.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: This Management Area includes undefended, eroding cliff areas, sandy beaches and cliff top communities. Several cliff top sections of the SW Coast Path are under threat and along all frontages the potential exists for coastal squeeze and narrowing of intertidal areas to occur under a scenario of rising sea levels.

The SMP indicates that along the harder natural cliff sections there is likely to be limited erosion, typically in the order of 10m or less at the existing headlands. This provides a basic structure to the coastline that limits the interaction between the various beaches in the area. While generally this erosion may pose problems for the Coastal Path and may impact on gardens in some locations, properties are not considered at risk. This requires long term monitoring.

The key areas of change relate to the various small bays.

At Carlyon Bay, development has occurred since the development of the SMP, with new defences having been put in place. While the responsibility for defence is understood to have been placed on the developer, the impact of defences should be monitored.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA07

O p e n

In other areas:  At Charlestown Harbour, it is still uncertain whether further development is planned. Any plans would need to consider the impact on adjacent beaches. Subject to developing plans for the area, there may be the need for adjusting the Coastal Path.  At Duporth, cliff falls may impact on gardens. The policy, taken forward from SMP1 is for NAI and is not a management change. However, there is the need to monitor cliff recession to further increase awareness of private owners as to the on-going change in the coast.  At Porthpean, there is concern that there will be increased pressure on the slipway and boat park at the southern end of the bay. It is anticipated that the current alignment of defences will be unsustainable.

IMPLICATIONS: Over the whole area at specific locations lengths of the Coastal Path will be lost. There is the need to review this and plan for change.

The development at Carlyon may impact on future development of the beach and this will need to be reviewed.

Any development at Charleston Harbour may influence the behaviour and erosion pressure on adjacent beaches. There will with sea level rise be increased pressure and maintenance requirements on the harbour structures, impact on the historic value and use of the harbour.

With sea level rise, the present arrangement of defences and slipway at Porthpean will become increasingly difficult to sustain, impacting on local coastal use, the boat park and potentially property boundaries to listed buildings.

PROGRESS REVIEW New defences have been constructed at Carlyon Bay. It terms of coastal management, the decisions as to future change and responsibilities need to be confirmed.

There is on-going monitoring of the beaches and cliff line.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA07

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 7/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Continue monitoring of beaches and cliff recession CCc, EA, SW Coastal Path On-going 7/MON2/CCc Defences CCc Monitor and review condition and maintenance of Charleston Harbour users, HE On-going (Charlestown Harbour structures harbour & west beach PU 7.3) 7/Rst1/CCc Review CCc Review long term change in beaches and cliff recession SW Coastal Path, 2019 ( Five yearly) 7/INV1/CCc Awareness CCc Confirm arrangements for informing individuals on erosion rates Community and individual land 2019 and discussion of implications owners, CCp 7/Gst1/CCp Review CCp Review potential risk to Coastal Path and development CCc, SW Coastal Path 2019, on-going management plan 7/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Review behaviour of Carlyon Beach to review and inform impact CCc, developer To be confirmed (Carlyon of development. Beach PU 7.2) 7/POL 2/CCp Policy CCp Subject to development plans for Charleston Harbour, review CCc, Harbour users, HE To be confirmed (Charlestown impact on harbour and adjacent beaches. (linked to 7/MON2/CCc harbour & and 7/Rst1/CCc). west beach PU 7.3) 7/INV2/CCp Awareness CCp Discuss of implications at Porthpean and establish a CCc, local community, Sailing 2017 management approach. club, HE 7/Gst2/CCp Future CCp Develop in conjunction with the community and interested parties CCc, local community, Sailing 2017 on-going (Porthpean adaptation plan a longer term visioning at Porthpean, taking account of the club, HE PU 7.5) recommendations of the SMP.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA07

MA 08

Black Head to Dodman Point

O p e n

Location Reference: Black Head to Dodman Point Management Area Reference: MA 08 Policy Development Zone: PDZ4

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA08

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit Policy Plan 2025 2055 2105 Comment 8.1 Undefended cliffs NAI NAI NAI Continue with existing approach Pentewan Policy to provide more flexibility to address flood risk 8.2 MR MR HTL Harbour & village and facilitate local re-development Allow beach to respond naturally to sea level rise. Avoid NAI/ constraining and reduction in beach and dune width. 8.3 Pentewan Beach NAI MR HTL Guide land use planning towards a roll back policy through MR approach in second epoch. Allow flexible approach to landward/seaward HTL/ HTL/ adjustment in defensive strategy. Realignment of 8.4 Mevagissey HTL MR MR harbour structures could form part of a future flood risk management solution. HTL for short term but accept long term defence not sustainable. Appraise options for re-alignment of route 8.5 Portmellon HTL MR MR & management of risks to property during next 5 – 8 years to inform SMP3. Realignment could provide habitat opportunities. HTL for short to medium term, continue to hold pier but 8.6 Gorran Haven HTL HTL MR some realignment of shoreline defences required in epoch 3. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along undefended sections of cliff; MR at Pentewan Harbour & village; NAI along (0-20 years) Pentewan Beach; HTL/MR at Mevagissey; HTL at Portmellon and Gorran Haven. Medium term NAI along undefended sections of cliff; MR at Pentewan Harbour & village; MR along (20-50 years) Pentewan Beach; HTL/MR at Mevagissey; MR at Portmellon and HTL at Gorran Haven. Long term NAI along undefended sections of cliff; HTL at Pentewan Harbour & village; NAI/HTL along (50 -100 years) Pentewan Beach; HTL at Mevagissey; MR and adjustment at Portmellon and Gorran Haven. Mevagissey

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: This management area consists of mainly undefended slate cliffs, sandy beaches and is generally sparsely populated except for coastal communities located at Penetewan, Mevigissey, Portmellon, Gorran Haven and Chapel Point. The SMP identified that flooding and coastal erosion are significant issues for selected parts of this frontage. The entire frontage is designated as a Heritage Coast and together with the flood and erosion risks the intent of the SMP is to maintain a natural coastline where possible through a policy of NAI.

At Pentewan the SMP recommended a change from NAI at the Harbour (PU8.2) to MR in Epochs 1 and 2. This change is in order to allow for opportunities for local redevelopment of the harbour to address the flood risk and adjust the defensive line to provide a transition into the beach frontage to the south (Pentewan Beach PU8.3).

Due to little economic justification for HTL at the beach frontage an initial period of NAI followed by MR in Epoch 2 allows planning time and roll back of the holiday Park. It is desirable however, at this location to

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA08

O p e n

improve the area with establishment of sand dunes, providing a naturally enhanced defence to the caravan park, retained in a setback position.

Mevagissey (PU8.4) is recognised to be complex area within the SMP. The intent is to maintain the integrity of the village and the function of the harbour but, to succeed in this decisions need to be brought forward such that the use of the area from the harbour back along the centre of the village is adapted to the increased flood risk the village faces. Because this area is an integral part of the community, decisions on future management go beyond the remit of the SMP. Clearly there are options ranging from increasing the level of defence, through to relocation of people and commercial activities. Either of these extremes would have a substantial and significant long term impact on the character of the community. Alongside defining the area as a CCMA, there is a need to engage members of the community in some form of realistic visioning programme. The SMP should be seen as the opportunity for initiating this discussion.

At Portmellon (PU8.5) there is the risk of significant hinterland flooding and coastal erosion and due to the threat of the loss of the Mevagissey Road main local transport links could be disrupted. The SMP recommends HTL to give time to consider realigning the road and to develop an adaption plan with the local community. The management unit policy then moves to MR in the longer term with the opportunity for coastal habitat creation. Realistically, there are issues affecting individuals who own property at risk. This needs to be discussed to allow opportunity for relocation. In other areas of the coast where relocation is being progressed and the earlier people are made aware of future management decisions the better able they are to adapt. The area should be designated a CCMA so that further development does not place increased difficulties. Clearly the rates of sea level rise and the adjustment of the beach all become critical in terms of when this section of defence might no longer be maintained.

A similar situation could occur at Gorran Haven (PU8.6); however, over a longer period of time. Several properties are at potential risk, although they do gain some benefit in terms of the harbour pier. The SMP recognises that an integrated approach is required, recognising the value of the Pier and agreed management plan for the various defences. However, maintaining all defences, particularly over the northern section of the main bay is likely to result in increased beach loss. Monitoring of change in sea level and beach response will be essential in determining the degree and timescale of the risk. While the SMP suggests that significant change may be required over the 50 to 100 year timescale, it will be important to start raising awareness of the issues in relation to how defences are developed and maintained over the shorter term.

IMPLICATIONS: Much of the village of Pentewan is designated as a conservation area and is at significant potential risk of both fluvial and tidal flood risk, resulting in potential flooding to properties. In addition there is also significant erosion risk along the length of the beach which may result in the loss of a caravan park. By allowing the beach to naturally realign and improve the area through the establishment of sand dunes the caravan park will have time to plan a roll back of its assets.

There is significant risk at present at Mevagissey, increasing in the longer term, to the core use and occupation of the centre of the village.

At Portmellon there is the potential erosion risk to properties with the risk of loss of the main through route which would result in a division of the village resulting in significant challenges to the local community. The realignment of the road is therefore key to the adaptation of the local community living here.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA08

O p e n

Inappropriate development or change in management of defences has significant potential consequences on the character of the area at Gorran Haven.

At Pentewan there is a need as recommended within the SMP for monitoring and for engagement with the community and organisations with interests in the area. The intention would be to develop a longer term adaptation plan and investigate potential opportunities for local redevelopment of the harbour.

At Mevagissey, there is the need to develop a long term plan for managing risk associated with developing a master plan for adaptation.

At Portmellon there is an urgent need to establish a community adaptation plan including investigation of the road realignment options.

At Gorran Haven the principle need is in raising awareness of issues and establishing a local plan for an integrated approach to defence.

PROGRESS REVIEW Monitoring of beach change and cliff erosion is critical in advising the time scales of change. At present this area is not understood to be included with the Plymouth Coastal Observatory monitoring programme.

Apart from publication of the SMP2, no further action has been undertaken in terms of earlier community involvement.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA08

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 8/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Beach monitoring CCc, EA On-going

8/INV1/CCp Awareness CCp Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness CCc, community 2016 with the community 8/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Consult, agree and define as a CCMA Community, CCc,CCh, HE. 2017 Portmellon 8/Gst1/CCh Study CCh Investigate long term realignment opportunities for the road CCc, community 2018 Portmellon 8/INV2/CCp Adaptation CCp Develop long term community adaptation plan for the area CCc, community, HE, NE, EA, 2017 Pentewan planning (multi agency) 8/INV3/CCp Adaptation CCp Undertake scoping study to determine options for local CCc, community, HE, NE, EA, 2017 Pentewan planning redevelopment of the harbour and sand dune creation (multi agency) 8/INV4/CCp Study CCc Develop Sand dune BAP habitat strategy and management plan CCp, NE, EA, community 2018 Pentewan

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA08

MA 09

Veryan Bay

O p e n

Location Reference: Veryan Bay Management Area reference: MA09 Policy Development Zone: PDZ4

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA09

O p e n

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit Policy Plan 2025 2055 2105 Comment Undefended cliffs Continue with NAI approach. Support AONB and 9.1 NAI NAI NAI & coves Heritage Coast objectives Realign road (if economically justified) to adopt 9.2 Hemmick Beach MR NAI NAI NAI in long term This policy is intended to allow the natural development of the Sand Dunes, thereby contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets, and should reduce the visual impact of the car 9.3 Caerhays Beach MR MR MR parks adjacent to the foreshore to the benefit of the AONB. Suitable management of the dunes may reduce the overall rates of erosion as shown in the No Active Intervention scenario There is no intention to maintain council owned road retaining structures. All other defence structures are privately owned. The NAI policy 9.4 East Portholland NAI NAI NAI would not preclude maintenance of those structures in line with what has been done historically but would not be likely to support creation of new defences. No risk identified. NAI would not preclude local 9.5 West Portholland NAI NAI NAI management maintaining the privately owned low seawall. Maintain channel and small pier at low cost – no 9.6 Portloe HTL HTL HTL natural recession prevented under this approach. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI on undefended coast; MR at Hemmick Beach; MR at Caerhays Beach; NAI at (0-20 years) East Portholland; NAI at West Portholland; HTL at Portloe Medium term NAI on undefended coast; NAI at Hemmick Beach; MR at Caerhays Beach; NAI at (20-50 years) East Portholland; NAI at West Portholland; HTL at Portloe Long term NAI on undefended coast; NAI at Hemmick Beach; MR at Caerhays Beach; NAI at Veryan Bay (50 -100 years) East Portholland; NAI at West Portholland; HTL at Portloe

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: The majority of this Management Area comprises relatively resistant cliffs, interspersed with local bays. The whole area falls within the Heritage Coast and is part of the Roseland AONB. It is this essential natural character that dominates the intent set out within the SMP2, associated with the need to avoid commitment to unsustainable and inappropriate forms of defence.

In detail, there are two areas where change is being promoted from policies set out in SMP1; at Hemmick and Caerhays. The concern identified in SMP 1 in both areas was principally associated with the road.

At Hemmick Beach, there is a minor road running close to the back of the beach, with a small car park and slightly set back a cottage (owned by the National Trust). At present a low wall forms a defence at the back of the beach. This is not under particular pressure at present but will, with sea level rise, come under increased pressure. The intent set out in the SMP2 is to allow natural change to occur.

The back beach area, within and behind the dunes at Caerhays is used as a popular car park area, both providing access to the beach and in association with visitors to Caerhays Castle. The beach itself is very popular. At present there are low defences at the back of the beach. These are not under particular pressure at present but, with sea level rise, they will become more exposed and will constrain the natural development of the shoreline and the beach and dunes. As the dunes are

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA09

O p e n

allowed to roll back and develop, the car park, if retained in its current position will conflict with this natural development of the shoreline. The intent within the SMP is to move to a position where there is a naturally developing beach and dune system.

With sea level rise there will also be increased flood risk, affecting the valley within the grounds of the Caerhays Castle. This area gains little or no flood protection from the dunes as it is linked to flow within the small stream. In affect the SMP merely highlights this increasing risk, with no intent to manage flooding.

IMPLICATIONS: At Hemmick, issue will start to become more pronounced over the next twenty years. Potentially the road and property will not be threatened for more like 50 years. However, it is essential that thought is given to the issues raised and plans developed to accommodate change. This would require working with the Natural Trust in resolving issues associated with the property and for decisions to be made as to whether the road should be abandoned or realigned.

At Caerhays, there is a need to consider the use and access to the beach, considering what plans need to be put in place to relocate the car park. This is seen as a long term adaptive approach being developed.

PROGRESS REVIEW On-going monitoring of sea level rise and coastal change is essential in helping to assess the timeframe for adaptation and the development of the managed realignment approach. This is being taken forward by PCO. Although present monitoring record is relatively short, there is sufficient evidence at present to allow discussion of the future need for change. In neither area is it understood that these issues discussed in the SMP have been taken forward. The following actions are therefore recommended.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA09

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 9/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Ensure that adequate baseline information is in place to allow on- CCc, EA 2016 On going going long term monitoring of erosion and beach behaviour and sea level rise in relation to coastal flood risk. 9/INV1/CCc Awareness CCc Discuss issues raised with the National Trust and the Highway CCp, CCh NE, NT, HE. 2017 (Hemmick authority. From this develop future actions that need to be taken Beach PU forward. 9.2)

9/INV2/CCc Awareness CCc Discuss issues raised with landowners, Caerhays castle owners CCp, CCh, NE, Landowner(s) 2017 (Caerhays and the Highway authority. From this develop future actions that and businesses, Beach PU need to be taken forward. 9.3)

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA09

MA 11

Lower Fal

O p e n

Location reference: Lower Fal Management Area reference: MA 11 Policy Development Zone: PDZ 5

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA11

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit SMP1 Policy SMP2 Policy Plan 50 yrs. 2025 2055 2105 Comment To meet wider objectives of Fal and Helford SAC. NAI should not Not Undefended preclude the privately funded 11.1 considered in NAI NAI NAI Estuary banks maintenance of privately owned SMP1 quays along the main estuary and its tributaries. Hold the line Hold the line along Council (along maintained defended sections 11.2 St Mawes defended HTL HTL HTL which prevent erosion risk along sections and at Tredanham Road and Marine Castle) Parade. Holding existing defended frontage line to include maintenance of the frontage (subject to availability of St Just-in- funding) to ensure continued 11.3 Hold the line HTL HTL HTL Roseland operation of the commercial and leisure boating facilities and to provide protection to historic assets. More detailed assessment of future risk may be required with Not appropriate future flood warning Devoran & 11.5 considered in services considered and Perranarworthal MR MR MR SMP1 improvements made to the resilience of estuary-side community. It is likely to be in the medium to HTL(with longer term that some realignment 11.6 Mylor Quay Hold the line HTL localised MR (privately funded) of the existing MR) defence line should be considered. With improvements the current shoreline position is not seen as Not fully HTL(with unsustainable though some 11.8 Flushing considered in localised MR MR realignment of the defence line SMP1 MR) would be necessary in the longer term if sea level rise maintains accelerated increase. Land Use Planners should guide Not non-water compatible uses from 11.9 Penryn considered in HTL MR MR out of the future high risk floodplain, SMP1 and ensure appropriate resilience and resistance measures. The preferred policy at Falmouth is 11.10 Falmouth Hold the line HTL HTL HTL to continue to hold the line along the entire frontage. From Middle Point around Pendennis Point the erosion risk mapping indicates little risk to the historical assets; however the 11.11 Pendennis Point Do nothing NAI NAI NAI condition of the shore placement gun batteries should be monitored in relation to the ongoing shoreline recession rates. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA11

O p e n

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along the undefended estuary banks (not precluding private maintenance of existing (0-20 years) historic quays at discrete locations). HTL at ST Mawes. HTL at St Just. NAI at Restronguet. MR at Devoran & Perranarworthal. HTL at Mylor Quay. NAI at Mylor Bridge. HTL (with localised MR) at Flushing. HTL at Penryn. HTL at Falmouth. NAI at Pendennis Point. Medium term NAI along the undefended estuary banks (not precluding private maintenance of existing (20-50 years) historic quays at discrete locations). HTL at ST Mawes. HTL at St Just. NAI at Restronguet. MR at Devoran & Perranarworthal. HTL/MR at Mylor Quay. NAI at Mylor Mylor Creek Bridge. MR at Flushing. MR at Penryn. HTL at Falmouth. NAI at Pendennis Point. Long term NAI along the undefended estuary banks (not precluding private maintenance of existing (50 -100 years) historic quays at discrete locations). HTL at ST Mawes. HTL at St Just. NAI at Restronguet. MR at Devoran & Perranarworthal. MR at Mylor Quay. NAI at Mylor Bridge. MR at Flushing. MR at Penryn. HTL at Falmouth. NAI at Pendennis Point.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: The preferred plan for the Lower Fal aims to balance the provision of support to the core settlements of Falmouth, Penryn, St Mawes, St Just, Flushing, Restronguet and Mylor (in line with the high-level SMP objectives) with a management approach which does not adversely impact on the undeveloped parts of the lower estuary and importantly takes account of any potential impacts on the Fal & Helford SAC. It is important to note that there is a legal requirement to not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC; through impacts such as the loss of intertidal feeding areas by not allowing the high water mark to move inland due to climate change.

The SMP2 highlights the potential to improve risk management and increase opportunity to create further intertidal habitat. The SMP, therefore, highlights the need for a more adaptive approach at a local level. This approach requires a combination of measures including land use planning, transport planning, resilience measures and local realignment.

In particular:

 Future flood risks at Devoran appear to mostly affect Greenbank Road and Quay Road along with 20+ residential properties and commercial assets. The SMP highlights the need to review defence practice in this area looking to develop opportunity for MR.  At Mylor Quay, the flood risk increases into the future, and it is likely to be in the medium to longer term that some realignment (potentially privately funded) of the existing defence line would need be considered. Land Use Planning, Transport Planning and any village strategy will need to support this policy through consideration of climate change adaptation.  At Flushing, frequent flooding already occurs, with in excess of 40 residential properties at risk, primarily within the Trefusis and Coventry Road areas. Some investment into improving defences and resilience of the community has occurred, although the defences still only provide a fairly low standard of defence. The preferred approach is to employ HTL in epoch 1, with localised MR as required, but to move toward a more comprehensive managed realignment approach through epochs 2 and 3. Realignment of the defence line would be necessary in the longer term if sea level rise maintains accelerated increase. Land Use Planning should support the adaptation of Flushing against rising sea levels, including roll back of property to facilitate any future Managed Realignment. This should also be considered in any village strategy. Community involvement with any management approach is important at Flushing and this would include the design and appearance of any structural approach to MR and the implementation of flood resilience measures for the most vulnerable properties. Improvements to the flood warning system and the provision of community based warnings at Flushing would be beneficial.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA11

O p e n

 At Penryn, a large number of waterfront properties and the local access road are at currently at risk from tidal flooding. This risk is set to increase with rising sea levels. Land Use Planners should guide non-water compatible uses from out of the future high risk floodplain, and ensure appropriate resilience and resistance measures. Any future redevelopments should look to mitigate for coastal squeeze of the mudflat habitats linked to the downstream Fal and Helford SAC. Transport Planners should consider options for improving the resilience of Commercial Road to flooding, which may require localised raising of ground levels over time. The preferred way forward is therefore to manage the risks through a policy of realignment and adaptation of the frontage. A proposed HTL / MR /MR approach will allow time for an initial assessment of how the risks can be accommodated through MR and how this can be delivered over the following epochs.

IMPLICATIONS: Although there are areas currently affected by flood risk the main implications are in terms of the medium to longer term planning for consequence of climate change.

An important implication, in looking for change, is in creating both the opportunity to sustain the core values of the communities while also delivering possible environmental enhancement, addressing the potential imbalance within the estuary as a whole.

Future decisions will depend on the rate of climate change in terms of both rainfall and sea level rise. Critically, however, this requires long term planning so that further development and more immediate response to present flood risk is developed within a longer term plan for each area. As such it is recommended that each of the areas identified in the SMP and highlighted above are defined as Coastal Change Management Areas. This, however, needs to go beyond merely definition of CCMAs , proactively engaging communities and associated interests in developing plans for adaptation.

PROGRESS REVIEW Apart from publication of the SMP, it is understood that no further action has been undertaken in terms of earlier community involvement.

Early engagement and long term planning will be important in developing adaptation opportunities.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA11

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 11/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Establish a coastal change management area for Devoran, EA, CCc, CCh, Community and 2020 businesses, NE (multi agency) (Devoran PU enabling development of a community development plan. 11.5) 11/INV1/ CCp Future CCp Develop in conjunction with the community a longer term EA, CCc, CCh, Community and 2021 businesses, NE (multi agency) (Devoran PU adaptation visioning of the areas, taking account of the recommendations of 11.5) plan the SMP. 11/POL2/ CCp Policy CCc Establish a coastal change management area for Mylor Quay, EA, CCc, CCh, Community and 2020 (Mylor Quay PU enabling development of a community development plan. businesses, NE(multi agency) 11.6) 11/INV2/ CCp Future CCp Develop in conjunction with the community a longer term EA, CCc, CCh, Community and 2021 (Mylor Quay PU adaptation visioning of the areas, taking account of the recommendations of businesses, NE (multi agency) 11.6) plan the SMP. 11/POL3/ CCp Policy CCp Establish a coastal change management area for Flushing, EA, CCc, CCh, Community and 2020 (Flushing PU enabling development of a community development plan. businesses, NE (multi agency) 11.8) 11/Rst1/EA Review EA Review existing flood risk CCp, CCc, CCh, Community and 2017 (Flushing PU businesses, NE (multi agency) 11.8) 11/INV3/ CCp Future CCp Develop in conjunction with the community a longer term EA, CCc, CCh, Community and 2017 (Flushing PU adaptation visioning of the areas, taking account of the recommendations of businesses, NE (multi agency), 11.8) plan the SMP. 11/POL4/ CCp Policy CCp Establish a coastal change management area for Penryn, EA, CCc, CCh, Community and 2020 (Penryn PU enabling development of a community development plan. businesses, NE 11.9) 11/INV4/ CCp Future CCp Develop in conjunction with the community a longer term EA, CCc, CCh, Community and 2021 (Penryn PU adaptation visioning of the areas, taking account of the recommendations of businesses, NE (multi agency) 11.9) plan the SMP. 11MON1/EN Review CCc, NE Monitor broader scale impacts on the environment and review EA, CCp 2019 needs for mitigation or enhancement. 11/Gst1/EN Review NE Review boundaries of SAC to include new intertidal areas EA, CCp. 2019

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA11

MA 12

Upper Fal

O p e n

Location Reference: Upper Fal Management Area Reference: MA 12 Policy Development Zone: PDZ 5

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA12

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit SMP1 Policy SMP2 Policy Plan 50 yrs. 2025 2055 2105 Comment Undefended Not To meet wider objectives of Fal and 12.1 Estuary considered NAI NAI NAI Helford SAC banks in SMP1 Some increasing risk to local transport route and small number of properties is indicated but this seems unlikely to justify Not Ruan significant investment in defences. 12.2 considered NAI NAI NAI Lanihorne Monitoring of water levels during extreme in SMP1 events should continue to be part of the management approach under the preferred NAI. Reducing risks to the main A390 through Not route is a key driver at this location. A 12.3 Tresillian considered HTL MR MR longer-term managed realignment in SMP1 approach would be preferred along this length. Preferred plan is to balance requirements Not for continued port and quay operations with Truro – 12.5 considered HTL/MR HTL/MR HTL/MR an identification of where environmental Upper Basin in SMP1 and landscape improvements can be made. More detailed assessment of future risk Not may be required with appropriate future Calenick 12.6 considered MR MR MR flood warning services considered and Creek in SMP1 improvements made to the resilience of estuary-side community through MR. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along undefended estuary banks. NAI at Ruan Lanihorne. HTL at Tresillian. HTL/MR (0-20 years) for Truro - Upper Basin. MR at Calenick Creek. Medium term NAI along undefended estuary banks. NAI at Ruan Lanihorne. MR at Tresillian. HTL/MR for (20-50 years) Truro - Upper Basin. MR at Calenick Creek. Long term NAI along undefended estuary banks. NAI at Ruan Lanihorne. MR at Tresillian. HTL/MR for (50 -100 years) Truro - Upper Basin. MR at Calenick Creek.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: As with the Lower Fal Management Area, the preferred plan for the Upper Fal aims to balance the provision of support to the core settlements with a management approach which does not adversely impact on intertidal areas and habitats and importantly takes account of any potential impacts on the Fal & Helford SAC. It is important to note that there is a legal requirement to not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC; through impacts such as the loss of intertidal feeding areas by not allowing the high water mark to move inland due to climate change.

In places throughout this MA, the banks are quite steep and wooded, constraining the movement of mean high water but there are also significant areas where topography is low-lying, typically close to the settlements. There also appears to be a greater propensity for the accretion of sediment in the upper estuary and creeks – at Truro the artificial narrowing which has occurred at Lighterage Quay and the Tidal Barrier has served to increase the amount of sedimentation in the tidal basin adjacent to the Newham and

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA12

O p e n

Boscawen Park frontages. The SMP recommends consideration of several areas of MR, potentially reducing flood risk but also reducing the impact of defence on the Fal & Helford SAC. This approach guides the general approaches for change highlighted below.

Tresillian - Reducing risks to the main A390 through route is a key driver at this location along with aiming to minimise losses of intertidal habitat within the Fal and Helford SAC due to squeeze. The upstream extent of the commercial property also coincides approximately with the upstream boundary of the SAC. Therefore undertaking realignment along this section would reduce impacts on the SAC habitats. It may also be suitable to consider some realignment and capacity for increased flood storage on the left hand bank where a road and small embankment provides an existing barrier. This would have the benefit of potentially providing some additional intertidal habitat.

The preferred plan for the whole tidal basin upstream of the mouth of Calenick Creek (PU12.6) is to balance requirements for continued port and quay operations with an identification of where environmental and landscape improvements can be made. This would include maintenance of historic quay walls and channel structures at Town Quay, and Lighterage Quay to be maintained with regard to commercial viability. At the same time managed realignment options are to be sought at Garras Wharf, along the Boscawen Park frontage and in the area to the south of the sewage works at Lighterage Quay at the mouth of Calenick Creek.

The Boscawen Park frontage provides some potential realignment opportunity. The preferred plan suggests that some realignment of the current shoreline position along the left hand bank adjacent to Boscawen Park could be considered in the medium term to relieve sea level rise pressure on the current channel and tidal barrier and to better manage risks to the wider area. This would also provide potential intertidal habitat creation opportunities. There has historically been a period of waste tipping and some of this refuse is starting to be exposed in the ground layers beneath the top soil where the current banks are suffering some erosion. The controlled removal of this waste would have to be managed as part of any realignment strategy. Despite the complexities, the preferred plan would be to consider managed realignment – but a more detailed investigation would be required to decide on the extent of realignment and the position of the set-back banks, and to ascertain the actual composition and nature of the waste material. Although realignment could provide channel capacity and habitat benefits, this is weighed up against the socio-economic benefits of the parks open spaces and sports playing surfaces.

At the Garras Wharf car park and the Tesco superstore site (PU 12.5), it is felt that proposals to realign through this area are likely to be controversial despite the longer-term landscape and social benefits that such a strategy could deliver. However it is understood that Tesco wish to relocate to another site and land-use planners have already held initial discussion with a view to a changing land-use type at Garras Wharf and the SMP supports this potential improvement. This is something requiring more detailed assessment.

IMPLICATIONS: The SMP policies create the opportunity for environmental enhancement potentially mitigating impacts elsewhere within the broader area. Sediment monitoring within the estuary would help inform this potential.

Specifically the opportunity at Boscawen Park could provide minimum 1.5 ha and up to 4.8 ha of potential intertidal habitat. Although realignment could provide channel capacity and habitat benefits, this is weighed up against the socio-economic benefits of the parks open spaces and sports playing surfaces, this requires further investigations.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA12

O p e n

Development of the policy of HTL/MR within the Truro River basin needs to be linked to development planning within the area but should include a detailed analysis regarding operation of the Truro Tidal Barrier in epoch 1, along with study of accretion of sediments within tidal basin.

PROGRESS REVIEW Improvements have been made to the Lighterage Quay (this needs confirmation). It is understood that initial discussions have been undertaken with respect to future land use within the Truro River basin. This needs to be confirmed and development opportunities integrated with risk and environmental issues identified within the SMP.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA12

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 12/Gst1/CCp Investigation CCp Investigate issue of landfill remediation /removal at Boscawen CCc, EA 2016 (Calenick Park. Creek PU12.6) 12/Rst1/EA MR study EA Review and develop potential MR at Boscawen Park, including EA, CCc, CCp, CCh, Sport England, 2017 (Calenick initial consultation and engagement. Draw upon results of Local sports groups, NE, Local Creek 12/Gst1/CCp community PU12.6) 12/Gst2/NE Review NE Review requirements of the SMP HRA in response to 12/Rst1/EA EA, CCp. 2017 12/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Consult, agree and define Truro Tidal Basin as a CCMA Community, CCc, EA. 2017 (Truro Tidal Basin PU12.5) 12/INV1/CCp Local CCp Review of long term adaptation plan for the area of the Tidal CCc, community, NE, EA, (multi 2020 (Truro Tidal Development Basin. agency) Basin strategy PU12.5) 12/Gst3/EA Sediment EA Review and monitor sediment change in local areas around this CCc, CCp, NE 2019 study MA. To input into 12/INV1/CCp and 12/Gst2/NE, taking account of potential realignment at Boscawen Park.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA12

MA 13

Pendennis Point to Rosemullion Head

O p e n

Location Reference: Pendennis Point to Rosemullion Head Management Area Reference: MA 13 Policy Development Zone: PDZ 5

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA13

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit SMP1 SMP2 Policy Plan Policy 50 yrs. 2025 2055 2105 Comment Undefended cliff Do 13.1 NAI NAI NAI To meet wider objectives of Fal and Helford SAC. sections nothing Coast processes pressures on the frontage are Castle Beach and Hold the 13.2 HTL HTL HTL light, although some coastal squeeze is likely to Gyllyngvase line occur due to sea level rise. HTL in the short term should provide scope to Hold the 13.3 Swanpool HTL MR MR assess in more detail the implications of a managed line realignment approach. HTL in the short term should provide scope to Hold the 13.4 Maenporth HTL MR MR assess in more detail the implications of a managed line realignment approach. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along undefended cliff sections. HTL along Castle Beach and Gyllyngvase frontages. (0-20 years) HTL at Swanpool. HTL at Maenporth. Medium term NAI along undefended cliff sections. HTL along Castle Beach and Gyllyngvase frontages. (20-50 years) MR at Swanpool. MR at Maenporth. Long term NAI along undefended cliff sections. HTL along Castle Beach and Gyllyngvase frontages. (50 -100 years) MR at Swanpool. MR at Maenporth.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: Within this area the underlying intent of the SMP is to maintain the natural development of the coast, meeting the wider objectives associated with the Fal and Helford SAC. This will result in potentially significant change locally at Swanpool and Meanporth. In both cases there are locally important issues that need to be addressed; however, in neither area is there an economic justification for continued defence. Furthermore, in both areas with sea level rise it is considered unsustainable to maintain defences in the medium to long term.

The intent of the SMP is maintain defences over the short term allowing time within which to develop an adaption plan for the medium to long term. Critically, the need for realignment depends on the rate of sea level rise. Typically, the main impact of realignment might arise over the next 50 years.

IMPLICATIONS: At Swanpool defences, including the road has a low standard of protection.

The main implications of the policy would be increased saline intrusion into the SSSI designated pool to the rear of defences, the loss of the road and the Coastal Path and the loss of local facilities such as the carpark. There is also potential impact on historical features.

At Maenporth, there is the risk of increased flooding to the valleys to the rear of the beach. The use of the road would be affected in the medium term with potential loss of use in the longer term. There would also be impacts and potential loss of amenity facilities including café, toilets and the car park. There are also impacts on historic features. Allowing the beach to develop and roll back would maintain the important attraction and landscape of the area and is likely to maintain the Coastal Path.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA13

O p e n

PROGRESS REVIEW Monitoring of beach change is critical in advising the time scales of change. At present this area is not understood to be included with the Plymouth Coastal Observatory monitoring programme.

Apart from publication of the SMP, no further action has been undertaken in terms of earlier community involvement.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA13

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 13/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Beach monitoring CCc, EA On-going 13/INV1/CCc Awareness CCc Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness CCp, CCh, NE, EH, community 2016 (Swanpool with the community and businesses. PU13.4) 13/Gst1/NE Adaptation NE Review impact of change on SSSI CCc, EA 2016 (Swanpool impact PU13.4) 13/INV2/CCp Adaptation CCp Review and develop long term adaptation plan for the area to be CCc, CCh, NE, EH, community 2018 (Swanpool planning informed by 13/MON1/PCO and 13/Gst1/EN and businesses. PU13.4) 13/INV3/CCc Awareness CCc Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness CCp, CCh, NE, EH, community 2016 (Maenporth with the community and businesses. PU13.4) 13/INV4/CCp Adaptation CCp Review and develop long term adaptation plan for the area to be CCc, CCh, NE, EH, community 2018 (Maenporth planning informed by 13/MON1/PCO and businesses. PU13.4)

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA13

MA 15

Lizard East (Nare Point to Lizard Point)

O p e n

Location Reference: Lizard East (Nare Point to Lizard Point) Management Area Reference: MA 15 Policy Development Zone: PDZ 6

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA15

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit SMP1 SMP2 Policy Plan Policy 50 yrs. 2025 2055 2105 Comment Undefended Satisfy high level and local objectives. Meet Do 15.1 cliffs and NAI NAI NAI objectives of the Lizard SAC, Monitor historic site nothing coves at Trebarveth. Adjust defence in epochs 2 & 3 to accommodate Hold 15.2 Porthallow HTL MR MR increasing flood risk and improve resilience of the line community. No risks to assets. Current shoreline position able Do 15.3 Porthoustock NAI NAI NAI to adjust. nothing

Significant coastal squeeze pressures exist; shoreline may be vulnerable to erosion. Cost of maintaining defences into the future may be high. Hold 15.4 Coverack HTL HTL/MR HTL/MR Geotechnical study is required to identify position the line of relict hard cliff line. This will help dictate whether HTL remains viable as the default policy option in the long term or whether a move to MR is required. Introduce MR to allow selective maintenance and Kennack Do adjustment of defences to meet local heritage 15.5 MR MR MR Sands nothing objectives without unduly preventing natural processes. Current shoreline position appears sustainable Hold under the WPM scenario. Limited maintenance 15.6 Cadgwith HTL HTL HTL the line costs to defence. Accept some increase in wave related flood risk. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along undefended cliffs, coves and beaches. HTL at Porthallow. NAI at Porthoustock. (0-20 years) HTL at Coverack. MR at Kennack. HTL at Cadgwith. Medium term NAI along undefended cliffs, coves and beaches. Move to MR at Porthallow. NAI at (20-50 years) Porthoustock. Move to MR at Coverack. MR at Kennack. HTL at Cadgwith. Long term NAI along undefended cliffs, coves and beaches. Continue MR at Porthallow. NAI at (50 -100 years) Porthoustock. Continue MR at Coverack. MR at Kennack. HTL at Cadgwith.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: The dominant nature of this coastline is hard resistant cliffs with discrete coves and beaches. There is little or no interaction between these beach areas. Within the underlying overall intent to maintain the important natural nature of the coast, the intent of the SMP2 is to sustain the integrity of local communities. However, with climate change and sea level rise, there will be increased pressure for beaches to move landward. This can impose pressure on defences and if those defences are maintained there will be loss of beach levels. Equally where there is sufficient width within the beach to allow natural roll back it is important that new or improved defences do not constrain the development of the natural beach protection.

Two critical areas are identified at Porthallow and at Coverack, with Kennack Sands also requiring consideration in terms of managing erosion risks to historic assets.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA15

O p e n

In the case of Porthallow, there is a relatively wide beach area and the main concern is in relation to increased flood risk. The important intent of the SMP2 is to ensure that any works necessary to maintain suitable flood risk management does impose itself within the active beach zone. There existing flood risk issues and further examination of the continuity of flood defences is required. The intent of the SMP is to maintain the integrity of the village in such a manner as to avoid loss of natural protection afforded by the beach.

At Coverack, the situation has historically become critical. The current line of defence is held possibly by the natural hard geology or by the introduction of historic defences. This has resulted in coastal squeeze with low beach levels. Determining the degree to which existing defences are founded on underlying harder geology is fundamental in determining the sustainability of the existing defences. A key intent of the SMP is to maintain the Geological SSSI in the area. The intent of the SMP, subject to findings of an investigation into ground conditions, is to sustain the integrity of the village, accepting that should defences not be founded to resistant rack there may be the need to realign the existing defences and potentially the road. Even if defences are maintained there is concern that with sea level rise there may be a need to either raise defences in the future or accept the need for adaptation.

At Kennack Sands, the 2 recommends a more proactive approach to managing change; moving from NAI in SMP1 to Managed Realignment. The intent of this approach is allow for selective maintenance and adjustment of the defensive line, with the aim of meeting local objectives for the historic interests, without unduly preventing natural processes and meeting the wider objectives relating to the SAC, SSSI, AONB and Heritage Coast.

IMPLICATIONS: At Porthallow, there is a risk of increased flooding to the village and properties.

At Coverack, subject to the results of the ground investigations there is the risk of loss of the road and potentially up to 20 properties.

PROGRESS REVIEW At present the Porthhallow area is not understood to be included with the Plymouth Coastal Observatory monitoring programme.

A geotechnical investigation has been carried out at Coverack. This now needs to be interpreted so as to clarify future management of the area.

Apart from publication of the SMP2, no further action has been undertaken in terms of earlier community involvement.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA15

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 15/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Extend beach monitoring to cover the Porthallow area CCc, EA 2016 On going 15/Rst1/EA Risk EA Undertake a detailed assessment of flood and risk and assess CCc, CCh, community, HE 2016 assessment potential for improvements to flood defence taking account of concerns raised by the SMP. 15/INV1/EA Awareness EA Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness of CCc, CCh, community 2016 issues within the area 15/Rst2/CCc Defence CCc Review the results of the geotechnical investigation and re- CCh, EA, 2016 strategy assess SMP policy and approach to coast protection. 15/INV2/CCc Consultation CCc Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness of CCh, EA, Community, NT, 2017 (Coverack issues with the community and subject to the findings of Tourist Board, NE PU15.4) 15/Rst2/CCc, initiate discussions about realignment 15/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Subject to the findings of 15/Rst2/CCc, consult, agree and define CCh, EA, Community, NT, 2017 as a CCMA Tourist Board, NE 15/SCH1/CCh Defence CCh Review the results of 15/Rst2/CCc and consider need for CCh, NE, EA, 2016 improvement improvement scheme

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA15

MA 16

Lizard West (Lizard Point to Baulk Head)

O p e n

Location Reference: Lizard West (Lizard Point to Baulk Head) Management Area Reference: MA16 Policy Development Zone: PDZ6

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA16

O p e n

OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit Policy Plan 2025 2055 2105 Comment Satisfy high level objectives and those relating to the Undefended cliffs 16.1 NAI NAI NAI Cornwall AONB, Heritage Coast and Lizard SAC and coves designations. Policy reflects intention of NT and objectives agreed 16.2 Mullion Cove NAI NAI NAI with local community. Poldhu Cove Low risk to infrastructure and roads at rear of beach 16.3 NAI NAI NAI

Significant erosion may occur at the rear of Church 16.4 Church Cove NAI NAI NAI Cove. This may impact on the Church within epoch 3. Up to 50m of erosion may occur by 2105, resulting in 16.5 Jangye-ryn MR MR NAI loss of the National Trust owned Winnianton Farm. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along entire frontage, with the exception of MR policy at Jangye-ryn. (0-20 years) Medium term NAI along entire frontage, with the exception of MR policy at Jangye-ryn. (20-50 years) Long term NAI along entire frontage. Manage as entirely naturally evolving coastline. Maintain (50 -100 years) monitoring programme

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: Much of the frontage is hard rock exposed to the dominant south-westerly wave direction. There are small coves and areas of softer geology and these are eroding and will continue to do so. There are local areas of defence including the harbour at Mullion Cove, defences at Poldhu Cove and along the Church Cove and Jangye-ryn frontages. Overall intent within the SMP across this management is to reduce present local management and avoid the need for longer term management. This is also in line with the approach being developed by the National Trust, who are one of the principle land owners at all the above sites.

Although the SMP identifies a limited number of properties at risk (and with the exception of Jangye-rye, which is specifically a policy of MR, merely progresses the SMP1 policy for No Active Intervention) at the local level, moving away from management of existing defences and structures will have significant impact. While the focus of this current review is on Jangye-ryn, there is a need for more general involvement of different stakeholders in developing the broader intent of the SMP over the whole area. . IMPLICATIONS: At Mullion Cove, the intent is to allow loss of the Harbour structures. This will impact on the landscape of the local area and in the longer term may result in loss of potentially up to four properties. While it is understood that this process to change is being managed by the NT, there is likely to be some involvement with Cornwall Council as a key stakeholder.

At Poldhu, the main shorter term issue may be in terms of maintaining the access road. This again is being managed by the NT but will involve Cornwall Council as a key stakeholder both in terms of planning and highways.

The issues at Church Cove and Jangye-ryn are linked in terms of management of access to the church of St Winwalloe. Over the longer term under the SMP policy there would be loss of properties and potentially

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA16

O p e n

the church and the church grounds. Locally, these are significant issues that will need to be managed in discussion with the local communities, the church commissioners and local residents.

There remains a degree of uncertainty over erosion rates, which will be critical to long term planning.

PROGRESS REVIEW The National Trust has been developing their “Shifting Shores” policy. However it is uncertain to what degree this has been taken forward in discussion with stakeholders in these locations.

Specific issues principally in connection with access and highways need to be clarified at both Poldhu and Jangye-ryn need to be addressed.

There is a need to start discussion and raising the general awareness and need for co-operation between all stakeholders as to the longer term implications of the preferred management approach.

Potentially the whole management area might be considered to be a CCMA.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA16

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 16/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Ensure that adequate baseline information is in place to allow CCc, EA 2016 On going on-going long term monitoring of erosion 16/Rst1/NT Risk NT Undertake a more detailed assessment of the management of CCc, CCp, community, Tourist 2016 (Mullion Cove assessment Mullion Harbour structures and the likely consequences as these Board PU16.2) structures fail. All to better inform other stakeholders in developing long term plans. 16/INV1/NT Awareness NT Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness of CCc, CCp, community, Tourist 2017 (Mullion Cove issues posed by management approach Board, NE PU16.2) 16/Rst2/NT Defence NT Review need for management of access road at Poldhu Cove CCh, Communities, Tourist 2017 (Poldhu Cove strategy Board, NE PU16.3) 16/INV2/NT Awareness NT Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness of CCc, CCp, community, Tourist 2016 (Church Cove issues posed by management approach Board, NE PU16.4 and Jangye-ryn PU16.5) 16/Rst3/NT Defence NT Review need for management of access to Church Cove as part CCh, Community, Tourist 2017 (Jangye-ryn strategy of developing adaptation discussed in 16/INV2/NT Board, NE PU16.5) 16/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Subject to discussion in16/INV1/NT (PU16.2), 16/INV2/NT CCh, EA, Community, NT, 2017 (PU16.4, PU16.5), consult, agree and define management area Tourist Board, NE as a CCMA

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA16

MA 17

Baulk Head to Trewavas Head

O p e n

Location Reference: Baulk Head to Trewavas Head Management Area Reference: MA 17 Policy Development Zone: PDZ7

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA17

O p e n

OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit SMP1 SMP2 Policy Plan Policy 50 yrs. 2025 2055 2105 Comment Do not preclude localised cliff stabilization to prevent Undefended Do 17.1 NAI NAI NAI damage to scheduled features as part of World Heritage cliffs nothing site. Gunwalloe Hold Current position of shoreline unsustainable & no economic 17.2 NAI NAI NAI Fishing Cove the line justification for defences. The feature itself is moving landward at around 1m/yr and raising its crest height in response to the coastal conditions. It is proposed that under the MR policy, the Loe Bar & Hold 17.3 MR MR MR crest height is managed for the purpose of controlling Pool the line water levels within Loe Pool and helping to manage flood risks at Helston. Part of the MR approach should be to address the impacts of saltwater inundation of the SSSI. Hold Economic justification likely, sustainability into epoch 3 17.4 Porthleven HTL HTL HTL the line needs to be reviewed periodically. Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along undefended cliff sections. NAI at Gunwalloe Fishing Cove. MR at Loe Bar to (0-20 years) manage risk while allowing natural change. HTL at Porthleven. Medium term NAI along undefended cliff sections. NAI at Gunwalloe Fishing Cove. MR at Loe Bar to (20-50 years) manage risk while allowing natural change. HTL at Porthleven. Long term NAI along undefended cliff sections. NAI at Gunwalloe Fishing Cove. MR at Loe Bar to (50 -100 years) manage risk while allowing natural change. HTL at Porthleven.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: Generally this area is dominated and characterised by its natural heritage. Alongside the characteristic south coast geology of slate with granite outcrops at Rinsey and Cudden Point, there is a valuable mosaic of lowland heathland, fens, reedbeds and freshwater lagoon. Gunwalloe is a small fishing cove settlement at the far eastern end of this zone. The length of coastline from Gunwalloe to Porthleven consists of 4.5km of steeply shelving beach, facing south-west. Mid-way along this coastline is Loe Bar, a barrier beach feature behind which lies Loe Pool (SSSI), the largest freshwater lagoon in Cornwall. Porthleven is a small fishing village based around a fairly substantial harbour, which still supports a small fishing fleet. The exposed nature of Porthleven to storms and large waves from the south-west is well documented. The Gunwalloe to Porthleven shoreline faces the open fetch of the north Atlantic and being south-west facing is exposed to extremely energetic waves from the west and south-west.

The historic features of interest include the Cornwall and West Devon World Heritage Site dramatically located engine houses along Trewarvas Cliff and Porthleven Conservation Area (photo, right).

This area is valued for the fishing communities at Gunwalloe and Porthleven, the rugged and rural (yet readily accessible) nature of the coastline and attractive locations. The high-level management intent is to provide support to the diverse nature of this part of the Cornish coastline and the objectives of the Cornwall AONB and the Lizard Heritage Coast. The intent is also to support the resilience of locally important infrastructure and access routes. This should include roll-back and re-routing policies for the coastal path. The objective of providing this support is to promote

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA17

O p e n

community resilience in the face of coastal change, supporting adaptation strategies where required, particularly along the more actively eroding stretches of coast at Gunwalloe.

The overarching management principle is to allow the natural evolution of the coast while recognising the need to support the adaptation and resilience of the coastal settlements. Continuing to support the recreational and amenity value of the coast is an important part of this intent but it cannot dictate the long- term shoreline position where a more sustainable long-term realignment is desirable.

At Gunwalloe Fishing Cove (PU 17.2), there are a number of discrete defence lengths including walls and rock placements, most of which have been privately constructed, giving a piecemeal appearance (and performance) of the defences. Erosion of the cliff faces continues despite presence of defences and SMP2 predicts erosion pressure of as much as 90m over the long term. The change in management intent from SMP1 of Hold the Line to a No Active Intervention approach reflects that the erosion pressures make the current defence line unsustainable. However this does not preclude the active monitoring of rates of change at this location, which indeed will be essential in informing the change in approach over the short to long term.

The defences present, while thought to give a somewhat piecemeal performance, will have a residual life which allows time in the short term to initiate discussions with the local community (around 6 residential properties) as to the way in which they may wish to manage this section of coastline; essential to which is ensuring common understanding of the technical and financial viability of maintaining the current private arrangements into the future. Part of the discussions will need to include information about the extraction of material from the foreshore at Gunwalloe, the future of the National Trust owned slipway, and Gunwalloe Road (above Halzephron Cove) and the listed, post mediaeval fishing cellars, both within the predicted erosion risk zone.

The overall intent, however, is to allow continued erosion of the frontage and this will result in loss of properties.

At Loe Bar and Pool (PU 17.3) there has been a history of human influence on the coastal processes which has included sediment extraction and forced breaching of the barrier as well as coast protection. In addition, the bar crest is found to be rising and as a whole moving landward in response to coastal conditions. This is expected to continue in response to rising sea levels. The SMP1 policy was to hold the line along the length of Loe Bar, however SMP2 recognises that a more flexible approach to managing this important feature is required, hence the Managed Realignment approach. The intent of management for Loe Bar and Pool is thus to allow the Environment Agency to actively manage the crest of the bar and thus (in conjunction with the existing culverts through the bar) control water levels in the pool in order to manage flood risk at Helson which is related to water levels in the pool. In addition, the policy should enable flexibility to address the impacts of potential saltwater inundation of the Loe Pool SSSI.

As above the intent is for minimal intervention with no intent to resist the long term retreat of the bar feature.

Moving to these approaches to management, in the short and medium term, needs careful review in discussion with the local communities and other stakeholders. In the immediate term a CCMA should be established for Gunwalloe Fishing Cove.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA17

O p e n

IMPLICATIONS: Gunwalloe Fishing Cove; residential properties, road, beach access and historical assets are within predicted erosion extents.

Potential change in Loe bar will have implications for the freshwater SSSI and potentially over the longer term the flood risk to Helson.

PROGRESS REVIEW On-going monitoring of sea level rise and coastal change is essential in helping to assess the timeframe for adaptation and the development of the approach at Gunwalloe Fishing Cove, however, there is sufficient evidence at present to allow discussion of the future need for change. There is a Water Level Management Plan in place for Loe Pool. This will need to be reviewed in relation to sea level rise and subsequent management of the bar.

An Environment Agency Flood Risk Management Scheme at Helston is underway to address combined flood risk from the River Cober and water levels in Loe Pool.

It is strongly recommended that Gunwalloe Fishing Cove is defined as a CCMA in order to prevent any additional development / inappropriate change of use while the approach to management is developed.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA17

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 17/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Ensure that adequate baseline information is in place to allow CCc, EA 2016 On going on-going long term monitoring of erosion and beach behaviour and sea level rise in relation to coastal flood risk. 17/INV1/CCc Awareness CCc Organise initial local meeting to discuss and raise awareness CCc, CCp, CCh, community, 2017 (Gunwalloe Fishing of issues posed by on-going pressures on the frontage. EA, NE, Landowner(s) incl. Cove 17.2) NT, HE.

17/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Developing on 30/INV1/Cornwall Council Community, CCc, CCp, CCh, community, 2017 (Gunwalloe Fishing consult, agree and define Gunwalloe Fishing Cove EA, NE, Landowner(s) incl. Cove 17.2) management area as a CCMA. NT, HE.

17/Rst1/EA (Loe Risk EA Review Environment Agency ’s Water Level Management EA, NE, community 2017 Bar & Pool PU17.3) assessment Plan for Loe Pool and recent Helston FRMS investigations to stakeholders. inform an integrated Beach and Bar Management Plan to facilitate the MR approach.

17/Rst2/Community Risk Community Establish residual life of the private defences at Gunwalloe to CCc, CCp, CCh, EA, NE, 2018 (Gunwalloe Fishing assessment assist in developing approach to adapting to NAI. Undertake Landowner(s) incl. NT, HE Cove 17.2) a more detailed assessment of the risk management issues and explore potential options for longer term management, drawing on initial identification of issues from 30/INV1/CC. Identify any immediate risks. 17/INV2/CCp Local CCp Develop an adaptive master plan for the areas to facilitate CCc, CCp, CCh, community, 2020 onwards (Gunwalloe Fishing management recommissioning of defences EA, NE, Landowner(s) incl. Cove 17.2) planning NT, HE

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA17

MA 18

Trewavas Head to The Greeb

O p e n

Location Reference: Trewavas Head to The Greeb Management Area Reference: MA18 Policy Development Zone: PDZ7

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA18

O p e n

DELIVERY OF THE PLAN SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POLICIES Policy Unit SMP1 SMP2 Policy Plan Policy 50 yrs. 2025 2055 2105 Comment Undefended Do Will allow natural evolution of the coastline. Will meet 18.1 NAI NAI NAI cliffs nothing high level objectives for AONB. Managed realignment approach should allow control over the rate of erosion without creating an Praa Sands Do unsustainable frontage. This needs to be linked in with 18.2 MR MR NAI east nothing the approach for Sydney Cove and the whole frontage can be managed under the same management scheme/approach. Managed realignment approach is preferred which links Praa Sands in with the Praa Sands East frontage. It is anticipated west Hold the 18.3 MR MR MR that residual life of defences would provide defence to (Sydney line the assets during epoch 1 if required as part of the Cove) overall MR approach. Soft eroding frontage, current shoreline position is Don unsustainable, scale of defence effort required to HTL is nothing 18.4 Perranuthnoe NAI NAI NAI unlikely to justify holding purely for amenity beach (short access and few properties. term)

Key: HTL - Hold the Line, A - Advance the Line, NAI – No Active Intervention MR – Managed Realignment

PREFERRED POLICY TO IMPLEMENT PLAN: From present day NAI along undefended cliff section. MR along Praa Sands east frontage. MR along Praa (0-20 years) Sands west frontage. NAI at Perranuthnoe. Medium term NAI along undefended cliff section. MR along Praa Sands east frontage. MR along Praa (20-50 years) Sands west frontage to provide transition. NAI at Perranuthnoe. Long term NAI along undefended cliff section. NAI along Praa Sands east frontage. MR along Praa (50 -100 years) Sands west frontage. NAI at Perranuthnoe.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND PROGRESS

INTENT OF THE CHANGE: The Praa Sands frontage, comprising policy units 18.2 and 18.3, forms a relatively straight section of the coast facing out to the dominant south westerly wave direction. While held by the hard structure of the adjacent sections of the coast, the Praa Sands frontage is backed by soft bounder clay cliffs. There is significant pressure for erosion and the occasional (but on-going) erosion of the cliffs supplies important sediment which allows the development of the beach. The SMP identifies, therefore, the danger that, with the shoreline attempting to roll back and in doing so providing width and sediment to sustain the beach, attempts to fix the shoreline over the full length of the frontage will result in coastal squeeze and loss of the beach.

The SMP, however, also recognises that there are important assets and infrastructure at risk, particular over the northern (Sydney Cove) frontage. The intent within the plan is to encourage and develop a Managed Realignment approach to management, potentially allowing the development of control points (local areas where the shoreline would be fixed, while allowing controlled erosion across other areas). At present, the way in which defences have developed has tended to be very piecemeal within no larger plan for a management of the area. The present approach to management is not seen as being sustainable, despite there being relatively high economic damages associated with allowing natural erosion to occur.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA18

O p e n

The broader scale intent for the frontage is to move towards a position where there is no need to manage defence of Policy Unit 18.2, allowing this frontage to eventually develop naturally; maintaining the value of the important natural coast and beach and continuing to provide the sediment to the overall beach system. To the north (PU18.3), the intent and gaining benefit from allowing a more natural development of the shoreline to south, would be to develop a more adaptive and managed approach to management.

This all needs to be developed within a long term plan for the overall frontage, raising and increasing the understanding of the issues with the local community and developing a sustainable approach into the future.

IMPLICATIONS: With a maximum possible shoreline retreat of up to 120m, there are obviously significant implications for the Praa Sands settlement. A number of assets would be at risk, including Castle Drive, Hendra Lane, residential properties along the Hendra and Praa Green frontages, commercial properties and tourist facilities at Sydney Cove and the two car parks at Sydney Cove.

There is a risk over the next 20 to 25 years. However, managing this in an inappropriate manner could start moving down an approach to defences that could not be sustained. Without a planned approach there could be substantial loss to the community and the landscape.

PROGRESS REVIEW There is a need to start discussion and raising the general awareness and need for co-operation between all stakeholders as to the longer term implications of the preferred management approach.

It is strongly recommended that the area is defined as a CCMA and that, through this, appropriate plans are developed to allow movement towards a more sustainable development of the whole frontage.

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA18

O p e n

ACTIONS: No. Type Owner Action Partners Programme 18/MON1/PCO Monitoring PCO Ensure that adequate baseline information is in place to allow CCc, EA 2016 On going on-going long term monitoring of erosion and beach behaviour. 18/INV1/CCc Awareness CCc Organise initial public meeting to discuss and raise awareness of CCp, community, Tourist 2017 issues posed by on-going pressures on the frontage Board, NE, National Trust 18/POL1/CCp Policy CCp Developing on 18/INV1/CCc, consult, agree and define CCc. CCh, EA, Community, NT, 2017 management area as a CCMA Tourist Board, NE 18/Rst1/CCc Risk CCc Undertake a more detailed assessment of the risk management CCp, community, CCh, EA 2018 assessment issues and explore potential options for longer term management, drawing on initial identification of issues from18/INV1/CCc. Identify any immediate risks. 18/INV2/CCp Local CCp Develop an adaptive master plan for the area and the community CCc. CCh, EA, Community, NT, 2018 - 2020 management to allow and encourage adaptation. Tourist Board, NE planning 18/Rst2/CCc Defence CCc Develop, based on 18/INV2/CCp, a programme of potential CCp. CCh, EA, Community, NT, 2020 strategy defences management needs for the area. Tourist Board, NE

21 September 2016 APPENDIX WATPB4338R001D01 MA40