Appendix G Policy Appraisal The Wash SMP2 - Gi - Appendix G – Policy Appraisal August 2010 APPENDIX G - CONTENTS Page G1 INTRODUCTION 1 G2 PDZ1 GIBRALTAR POINT TO WOLFERTON CREEK 2 G2.1 Final Policy Description 2 G2.2 Shoreline Development for the Plan 2 G2.3 Summary of Appraisal Results 2 G2.4 Flood Risk Policies 3 G3 PDZ2 WOLFERTON CREEK TO SOUTH HUNSTANTON 13 G3.1 Policy Description 13 G3.2 Shoreline Development for the Plan 13 G3.3 Summary of Appraisal Results 14 G4 PDZ3 HUNSTANTON TOWN 22 G4.1 Policy Description 22 G4.2 Shoreline Development for the Plan 22 G4.3 Summary of Appraisal Results 22 G5 PDZ4 HUNSTANTON CLIFFS 30 G5.1 Policy Description 30 G5.2 Shoreline Development for the Plan 30 G5.3 Summary of Appraisal Results 30 The Wash SMP2 - Gii - Appendix G – Policy Appraisal August 2010 G1 INTRODUCTION This appendix aims to provide an overview of the results of the policy appraisal process, focusing on the selected final policies only. The route by which these policies were chosen is detailed in appendix E and is supported by the technical analysis presented in the other appendices. This appendix only discusses the final policy for each PDZ, how the shoreline is likely to develop under the final policy and the results of the appraisal undertaken for each policy. Section 3.2 of the main SMP document describes the impact of the plan on a range of functions, features and values as defined in the SMP Guidance. This appendix is linked closely with section 2.4 (Sustainable Shoreline Management: Finding Right Balance), section 3 (Final Plan) and section 4 (Policy Statements) in the main SMP document. The Wash SMP2 - G1 - Appendix G –Policy Appraisal August 2010 G2 PDZ1 GIBRALTAR POINT TO WOLFERTON CREEK G2.1 Final Policy Description The intent of management for this PDZ is to sustain flood defence for the communities and their hinterland in the low-lying areas around the Wash. This includes an increase of management as needed to sustain the current level of flood risk in the face of climate change. In the short term (epoch 1) the policy to achieve this intent is to hold the existing seabank alignments. In the medium and long term, ideally the existing alignments should continue to be held, but there is a chance that climate change will cause a significant loss of salt marsh and mud flat in front of the seabanks, which would further increase pressure on the defences and affect the integrity of the habitats in the Wash. If this occurs, then the intent is to carry out localised managed realignments (when needed and as far as needed). G2.2 Shoreline Development for the Plan In epoch 1, the defence line is as per the current defence line; the coastal response for epoch 1 is expected to be similar to that noted at present. Accretion of the saltmarsh and mudflat is dominant, with the rates of both continuing to outpace sea level rise. In some locations there is the potential for some nett loss of mudflat due to loss at its landward edge at a faster rate than growth at its seaward edge. Into epochs 2 and 3 there is uncertainty over the shoreline development, which could range between a continued accretional future and a change to an erosional future. If monitoring and research shows that the current accretional trend reverses, and that the subsequent loss of foreshore is likely to threaten the integrity of the flood defences and the habitats, then the intent is to carry out localised managed realignments (when needed and as far as needed). Following realignment the saltmarsh would begin to develop on the newly realigned area, although the saltmarsh would still continue to reduce at its seaward edge. If the accretional trends continued into epochs 2 and 3 and therefore the current alignment was held, there would be continued growth of the saltmarsh, but a nett loss of mudflat (as a result of saltmarsh growth). G2.3 Summary of Appraisal Results Figure G2.1 provides an overview of the appraisal results for the Plan for this PDZ (for epoch 1 only) in the form of a schematic diagram. These scores are based on the appraisal tables provided in table G2.1 to table G2.3. The results for epochs 2 and 3 are not provided because of the conditional nature of the policies and the uncertainty about intertidal development. The Wash SMP2 - G2 - Appendix G –Policy Appraisal August 2010 Overall, the appraisal results show that the epoch 1 Hold the line policy supports current use of the defended land, and enables the ongoing positive development of the intertidal area. The policy does require continuation of the current levels of flood defence management. G2.4 Flood Risk Policies As discussed in section G2.1, in epoch 1 the flood defence function of the defences will be sustained. This includes increased management activity as needed to sustain the existing level of flood risk. The Wash SMP2 - G3 - Appendix G –Policy Appraisal August 2010 Figure G2.1 PDZ1 Policy Schematics – epoch 1 only PDZ1: Gibraltar Point to Wolferton Creek Zone E Zone D Zone C Zone B Zone A A road Established settlement Port HoldHold thethe LineLine -– Epoch Epoch 1 1 Aspect: Result: Flood & Erosion Undesirable Risk Management Communities Habitats Desirable Agriculture Graphic zones: Infrastructure A – intertidal zone B – among existing defences Landscape (east of River Great Ouse only) C – most landward defence line to established settlements Recreational Access to Foreshore D – established settlements E – landward of established Historic Environment settlements The Wash SMP2 - G4 - Appendix G – Policy Appraisal August 2010 Table G2.1 PDZ1 (Gibraltar Point to Wolferton Creek) - General Objectives (epoch 1 only) Objective Epoch 1 (2025) Epoch 2 (2055) Epoch 3 (2105) Score Explanation Score Explanation Score Explanation Flood and Erosion Risk Management The policy continues the use of the existing man-made defences. It does Maximise the use of existing man-made or not actively increase its use. natural defences (e.g. saltmarsh): the However it is expected that the total inland lines of (historical) defences and the 5 - - - - area of saltmarsh and mudflat will ridge of high ground between Wainfleet continue to accrete in epoch 1, and Wrangle therefore providing an additional extent of natural defence. Have as little flood and erosion risk This policy will require continued management throughout the plan period as 6 maintenance of the current defence - - - - possible line. The Wash SMP2 - G5 - Appendix G – Policy Appraisal August 2010 Objective Epoch 1 (2025) Epoch 2 (2055) Epoch 3 (2105) Score Explanation Score Explanation Score Explanation Communities Protect as a minimum, throughout the plan All established settlements will period, to an appropriate standard of continue to be protected to the protection, all established settlements1, 8 - - - - existing standard which is and the area landward from these considered adequate. settlements All settlements will continue to be Protect as many settlements as possible 8 - - - - protected to an adequate standard. Habitats Under the Hold the line policy the ‘natural processes’ are expected to be similar to today. The Maintain natural processes relating to saltmarsh/mudflat boundary will mudflats, saltmarsh, sand dunes and 7 - - - - continue to move seaward, and saline/coastal lagoons (where present) there will be a continued vertical and seaward growth of both the saltmarsh and mudflat There is expected to be continued seaward growth of both saltmarsh Maintain and if possible increase the area and mudflat. Saltmarsh growth of mudflats, saltmarsh, sand dunes and 8 - - - - comes at the expense of mudflat saline/coastal lagoons (if present) area, so there may be a nett loss of mudflat area. 1 Wainfleet All Saints, Wainfleet St Mary, Friskney, Wrangle, Old Leake, Leverton, Benington, Butterwick, Freiston, Fishtoft, Boston, Wyberton, Frampton, Kirton, Sutterton, Algarkirk, Fosdyke, Wigtoft, Bicker, Swineshead, Donington, Quadring, Gosberton, Surfleet, Pinchbeck and Spalding, Moulton Seas End, Holbeach Clough, Holbeach, Fleet Hargate, Gedney, Lutton, Long Sutton, Sutton Bridge, Holbeach St Marks, Holbeach St Matthew, Gedney Drove End, Walpole Cross Keys, Terrington St Clement, Clenchwarton, West Lynn, King’s Lynn, North and South Wootton, Castle Rising and Wolferton. The Wash SMP2 - G6 - Appendix G – Policy Appraisal August 2010 Objective Epoch 1 (2025) Epoch 2 (2055) Epoch 3 (2105) Score Explanation Score Explanation Score Explanation Agriculture In epoch 1 there will be no Grade 1 Protect as much grade 1 and grade 2 land 9 or 2 lands lost, and therefore all - - - - as possible agricultural land will be protected. In epoch 1, there will be no Grade 1 Ensure that the impact on the UK's area of or 2 land lost and therefore there will grade 1 and grade 2 lands is acceptable. 9 - - - - be no impact on the UK’s agricultural land as a whole. Infrastructure Avoid interruption of the functioning of Boston Port and King’s Lynn Port In epoch 1 the existing defence line throughout the plan period (note that will be held and as a result there will 9 - - - - Sutton Bridge Port is only dealt with in the be no interruption of the functioning relevant Timing of Policies Objective, and of Boston Port and King’s Lynn Port. does not have an individual Objective) In epoch 1, the existing defence line Avoid interruption of the drainage function will be held and as a result there will of Rivers Witham, Welland, Nene and 9 be no interruption of the drainage - - - - Great Ouse throughout the plan period function of the Rivers Witham, Welland, Nene and Great Ouse. Avoid interruption of transport connections and utility supply throughout the plan All roads will be protected to an 9 - - - - period – ROADS (where present) adequate standard.