Fairbourne: Moving Forward Frequently Asked Questions Vers Status Author Signed -off Date Date ion signed issued 1 Draft version Lisa Marshall Cefin Edwards 06.06.14 06 .06.14 2 Draft version Lisa Marshall Cefin Edwards 09.06.14 09.06.14 3 Final version Lisa Marshall Cefin Edwards 10.06.14 10.06.14 4 Amended Final Version Lisa Marshall Cefin Edwards 11.06.14 12.06.14 5 Amended version Phil Parker Peter Cole 09.10.14 15.10.14 6 Draft version Lisa Marshall Cefin Edwards 14.01.15 14.01.15 7 Final version Lisa Marshall Huw Williams 28.01.15 02.02.15 8 Final version Lisa Marshall Huw Williams 09.07 .15 01.09.15 Fairbourne: Moving Forward Frequently Asked Questions 04.09.2015 1 | P a g e As part of the Fairbourne: Moving Forward project and in response to a list of questions raised by Fairbourne Facing Change (dated 17.04.14), a list of Frequently Asked Questions has been produced to provide further insight into the project’s aims and objectives. The initial set of questions have come from the community and develop the original information that was made available before the public meeting on the 25 th April 2014. This current document, which will be updated on a regular basis and distributed to all stakeholders, aims to address matters of concern or interest raised by any stakeholder. However, please bear in mind that some responses may change as the project moves forward due to the level of information available at the time of publication of this document. The most up-to-date version of the Frequently Asked Questions will be published on the Fairbourne Facing Change website and distributed to all homeowners and residents of Fairbourne. A Glossary of Terms will also be produced and distributed accordingly. All questions have been colour-coded to assist you with the progress of each question: Questions in Red: Have now been updated where possible. At the time of submission, were not considered by the community as being fully-answered or required a more specific answer. Questions in Yellow: The community required an update or further detail. Questions in Green: Accepted – no further action required If you have any queries relating to this document (or require a copy in larger print), please raise them with a member of your community or alternatively, please contact the undersigned, who will log your query and respond to you in a timely manner. Lisa Marshall – Project Manager YGC, Gwynedd Council, Shirehall Street, Caernarfon, Gwynedd, LL55 1SH Tel: 01286 679591 – email: [email protected] Fairbourne: Moving Forward Frequently Asked Questions 04.09.2015 2 | P a g e 1. What is the status of SMP2 as far as Gwynedd Council is concerned? It seems to have been adopted as policy when it is a ‘ live ’ document. Can you clarify this please. SMP2 is the Councils policy document for managing the coast and will only be revised if there is a major issue which materially affects the policy decisions. The Plan would be revised, for example, if there was a significant change in projected sea level. 2. Now SMP2 is A Gwynedd Council policy how is it informing planning policy decisions? Are there plans to include it in the LDP? (Local Development Plan) The SMP is a material planning consideration for development management purposes, which means that it is reasonable to consider it in assessing relevant planning applications for development. It will also inform the development of relevant policies within the emerging Joint LDP. 3. It appears that as far as the Welsh government is concerned SMP2 has not yet been adopted, nor does it seem to be underpinned by an identified budget. Can you clarify this please? The Minister for Natural Resources agreed the West of Wales Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2) on the 20 th of October 2014. It included a caveat that the situation at Fairbourne should be constantly monitored. He has agreed to send a letter to Natural Resources Wales and the Chair of the Coastal Group, accepting the plan. The SMP2 is a non-statutory policy document for coastal flood and erosion risk management planning. It takes account of other existing planning initiatives and legislative requirements, and is intended to inform wider strategic planning. The SMP does not set policy for anything other than coastal flood and erosion risk management. The SMP2 promotes management policies for the coastline into the 22nd Century to achieve long term objectives, while being technically sustainable, environmentally acceptable and economically viable. Taking into account the forecasts of increasing risks due to climate change impacts, the SMP2 provides an approach for meeting objectives through appropriate management change, i.e. a ‘route map’ for decision makers to move from the present situation towards the future. The objectives of the SMP2 must be set out in accordance with the Government’s strategy for managing risks from floods and coastal erosion, and will help to ensure that the SMP2 promotes sustainable development, with respect to people, the human and natural environment. 4. With unequivocal clarity can you please explain what is meant by Managed Realignment for Rowen Spit in the first epoch? What is your estimate of cost for this managed realignment? Who pays for it? The generic policies headlines, such as ‘Managed Realignment’, have to be interpreted pragmatically depending on the local conditions and change anticipated over the epoch short term, medium term and long term (nominally from now for 20 years, from 20 to 50 years and 50 to 100 years). This has to be seen as a continuous process. The length of each epoch and the transition from each one will depend on how quickly sea level rise actually occurs. Fairbourne: Moving Forward Frequently Asked Questions 04.09.2015 3 | P a g e Therefore, what we have in this instance is the recognition that Rowen Spit does prevent waves entering the estuary (it does not protect Fairbourne directly – see 8 below) and is, therefore, of some benefit and warrants more than ‘No Active Intervention’ for the first two epochs. It should, however, be noted that, at present the spit is not fixed in its position; the dunes are allowed to develop naturally. It also recognises that the spit will come under increasing pressure in the future as sea levels rise and, therefore, ‘Hold the Line’ is not appropriate given the limited benefits it provides and, as importantly, rigidly fixing the spit could give rise to problems in managing the whole estuary entrance. Given the above the default is therefore ‘Managed Realignment’ which gives landowners and operating authorities the option of adapting the existing frontage to provide a sustainable defence in the short to medium term. This is the approach that has been taken to date and no one is currently promoting significant change in the way in which this location is currently being managed. 5. With unequivocal clarity can you please explain what MR means for the other epochs as they come into play and the estimated costs associated with them. Will it link with the Minister’s Investment Plan referred to on the ‘Week In Week Out’ programme? With 40 – 50 communities up for managed retreat why was Fairbourne singled out? The SMP is limited to selection from four generic policy headlines (Hold the Line, Managed Realignment, No Active Intervention and Advance the Line) as set out in the Guidance for developing SMPs. These have to be explained in relation to the individual areas and circumstances relevant to specific locations. The SMP attempts to do this. In this, it is recognised within the SMP that management, particularly in the Fairbourne area, goes beyond just management of defences and involves raising awareness and planning for change within communities. As stated earlier (with ref to original FAQS) the updated SMP, based on existing evidence, has emphasised that at present and over the next 40 years we can defend and that we should defend. This will be reviewed as further evidence is gained on sea level rise. However, this means that over epoch 2 (typically over the 20 to 50 years’ time period) we have to prepare for and start managing the change in risk and preparing for the longer term when defences would no longer be sustained. We need to address and investigate now all the important issues this raises but with a present policy of ‘Hold the Line’. As change becomes necessary, we have to manage this and hence the policy is ‘Managed Realignment’ in epoch 2. In the longer term (epoch 3) defences would no longer be managed and hence a policy of ‘No Active Intervention’. The specific details of how this change is managed needs to be defined and is the reason for ongoing discussion with the community and other partners in the project. Fairbourne: Moving Forward Frequently Asked Questions 04.09.2015 4 | P a g e 6. In terms of the railway can you explain unequivocally what Hold The Line means? How defences will be developed? What will this cost? Who will pay? Can you tell us where the cost benefit analysis for each of the epochs has been undertaken? The generic policies assigned to policy units are pragmatic options determined by circumstance. With regard to the railway there is a recognition that the railway line lies to the back of the flood plain and is at less risk in terms of the different forms of risk. The SMP has highlighted in other areas where there is increasing pressure on the transport system. The default setting is HTL which gives the rail operator the option of defending their asset.