Extracts from the Kelling to Lowestoft Ness Shoreline Management Plan Draft SMP Document for consultation September 2004
1. Introduction
1.1 THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN
A Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) provides a large scale assessment of the risks associated with coastal evolution and presents a policy framework to address these risks to people and the developed, historic, and natural environment in a sustainable manner. In doing so, an SMP is a high-level document that forms an important part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) strategy for flood and coastal defence (Defra, 2001).
This document provides the first revision to the original Sheringham to Lowestoft SMP (1996).
…
4. The preferred Plan
4.1 PLAN FOR BALANCED SUSTAINABILITY
The SMP is built upon seeking to achieve balanced sustainability, i.e. it considers people, nature, historic and economic realities.
The proposed short-term policies for this SMP provide a high degree of compliance with objectives to protect existing communities against flooding and erosion. The preferred long-term Plan promotes greater sustainability of the shoreline and one more in keeping with the natural character of this coast.
Continuing to defend the shoreline in a manner similar to today would produce a significant alteration in the nature of the coast, with large concrete seawall structures and few beaches. This might maximize protection to property and land, but would be both difficult and very expensive to sustain. It could also be damaging to the natural environment, and coastal industries, such as tourism, that rely upon the character of the coast to attract visitors.
The rationale behind the proposed Plan is explained in the following sections of text, which consider the SMP area as a whole. Details of the preferred policies for individual locations to achieve this Plan are provided by the individual statements in Section 5.
…
4.1.2 East of Cromer to Happisburgh
This is the most active length of coast within the SMP area and is the main provider of sediment for beaches throughout much of the SMP frontage. The erosion of this section is necessary to (a) allow beaches to build, which will help avoid accelerated erosion of the shorelines here and elsewhere and thus provide better protection to towns and villages, and (b) satisfy nature conservation and biodiversity requirements.
Because of the rapid natural erosion rates here, fixing the shoreline in any location will result in a sizeable promontory forming, Along this section, this would be likely to act as a terminal groyne in the long-term, with material reaching this point more likely to be deflected offshore and lost altogether rather than reaching destinations downcoast.
However, there are numerous assets that would be affected by wholesale abandonment of defences through this area, notably the sizeable villages of Overstrand and Mundesley, Bacton gas terminal, and the smaller settlements of Trimingham, Bacton, Walcott and Happisburgh. The continued defence of these areas is not sustainable in the long-term for the reasons highlighted above, plus in most cases it is highly unlikely that such a policy could continue to be economically justified in the long- term. Consequently, the policies for this area need to allow for managed change; continuing to provide defences where justifiable for the immediate future, but with a long-term Plan to gradually retreat and relocate, thus enabling a naturally functioning sustainable system to re-establish.
Both Overstrand and Mundesley will develop as promontories if their present positions are defended, which would result in as much as 70% of the sediment supply to beaches throughout the SMP being isolated and prevented from reaching other destinations. Similar arguments apply to Bacton gas terminal. Consequently, the most sustainable approach for the SMP as a whole is to retreat at these locations in the medium to long-term, although this would require the relocation of a large number of people, property and services within these settlements. The preferred Plan will therefore seek to maintain present defences for a period of time to put in place the mechanisms required to facilitate such changes. It is important to note that should a policy of retreat not be adopted at all locations, this would put into doubt the policies set elsewhere along this stretch and to Winterton to the south.
These same arguments apply to the remaining settlements along this stretch of coast, i.e. defending them is not sustainable as it will contribute to even more significant problems elsewhere. Furthermore, there is generally insufficient economic justification for replacing defences to these smaller settlements. Therefore the policy is to not maintain existing structures. WhiIst initial erosion may occur at a significant rate, as the shoreline reaches a more natural profile this rate will slow down as the release of more sediment to the beaches will mean greater natural protection is afforded.
The preferred policy will mean allowing unabated erosion throughout much of this area in the longer term. To manage relocation, occasional measures to temporarily delay (but not halt) this erosion from time to time may be acceptable in some locations where there are larger concentrations of assets, i.e. Overstrand, Mundesley and Bacton gas terminal.
…
Location reference: Ostend to Eccles
Policy Unit reference: 3b12
SUMMARY OF PREFERRED PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUSTIFICATION
Plan:
Although there are socio-economic implications, such as residential properties and amenities at risk from erosion at Happisburgh, these are not sufficient to economically justify building new defences along this frontage. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to defend Happisburgh due to the impact this would have for the SMP shoreline as a whole, as the coastal retreat either side would result in the development of this area as a promontory making it both technically difficult to sustain and impacting significantly upon the alongshore sediment transport to downdraft areas. Therefore the proposed long- term Plan is to allow natural functioning of the coast through allowing it to retreat.
Preferred policies to implement Plan:
From present day: The preferred policy from the present day is to allow natural processes to take place, through not extending or seeking to replace existing defences, i.e. no active intervention. At Happisburgh the existing rock bund would continue to have a limited effect on the retreat rates in the short-term (next 5 to 10 years), but will not prevent cliff erosion. Therefore over this period there will be further loss of cliff top land, including Grade 1 agricultural land, and properties.
Medium-term: The medium-term policy is to allow coastal retreat with no active intervention, so that the cliff line reaches a more sustainable position, i.e. a more natural position. There will be continued loss of property and facilities during this time, therefore there needs to be continued management of this risk.
Long-term: In the long-term the preferred policy would be to allow coastal retreat. During this period it is probable that properties threatened by erosion will include the village church. The increased throughput of sediment from adoption of similar policies to the north will help beaches to build along this frontage so that erosion, and therefore property loss, here is not accelerated over and above natural rates.
Once the shoreline reaches a more sustainable position, it may be acceptable to help beach retention at Happisburgh, if necessary, with structures such as short grosses, provided that these are not to detrimental to continued adequate sediment throughput to areas downdraft. These should not halt erosion, but would help to manage it in a sustainable manner.
PREDICTED IMPLICATIONS OF THE PREFERRED PLAN FOR THIS LOCATION
By 2025:
Property and land use: Loss of less than 15 properties, primarily along Beach Road, Happisburgh. Loss of cliff top caravan park land at Happisburgh. Loss of HM Coastguard Rescue Facility. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land.
Nature conservation: Continued exposure of Happisburgh SSSI cliffs (Changes to the management of the cliff top was identified as a potential biodiversity opportunity to establish a semi-natural cliff top edge)
Landscape: No landscape objectives identified.
Historic Environment: No loss of cliff top heritage sites.
Amenity & Recreational Use: Little or no beach. Access may be maintained at Happisburgh.
By 2055:
Property and land use: Cumulative loss of between 15 and 20 properties, primarily along Beach Road, Happisburgh. Further loss of cliff top caravan park land at Happisburgh. Further loss of Grade 1 agricultural land.
Nature conservation: Continued exposure of Happisburgh SSSI cliffs (Changes to the management of the cliff top was identified as a potential biodiversity opportunity to establish a semi-natural cliff top edge)
Landscape: No landscape objectives identified.
Historic Environment: Grade 1 St Mary’s church and Grade II Manor House at risk of erosion.
Amenity & Recreational Use: Beach present, but probable loss of existing access at Happisburgh.
By 2105:
Property and land use: Cumulative loss of between 20 and 35 properties. Loss of cliff top caravan park land at Happisburgh. Total loss of up to approximately 45 ha of Grade 1 agricultural land.
Nature conservation: Continued exposure of Happisburgh SSSI cliffs (Changes to the management of the cliff top was identified as a potential biodiversity opportunity to establish a semi-natural cliff top edge)
Landscape: No landscape objectives identified.
Historic Environment: Probable loss of Grade 1 St Mary’s church and Grade II Manor House.
Amenity & Recreational Use: Beach present, but probable loss of existing access at Happisburgh.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide Plan, therefore the above must be read in the context of the wider-scale issues and policy implications, as presented in the preceding sections and Appendices to this Plan document.