Decision details

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

i.                Recommend that Council approve and adopt the revised Strategy, with the recommended leading options identified in the Christchurch Bay & Harbour Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy for the New Forest District Council area, subject to securing the necessary funding contributions.

ii.              In approving and adopting the revised Strategy, commits to developing a Funding Strategy that will seek to identify and aim to secure the necessary funding contributions to enable the national or local leading options to be implemented via future capital schemes and maintenance of existing/new schemes, noting that the exact amount of contributions will need to be confirmed as schemes are developed.

iii.             notes that there is no statutory duty upon NFDC as the Coast Protection Authority to undertake coast protection works, nor does the adoption of the Strategy bind NFDC to commit to the provision of any funding for the delivery of the identified options.

iv.             notes that throughout the development of the Strategy, extensive engagement and consultation was undertaken with: 1. Residents & wider communities (including landowners, community groups, organisations and individuals) 2. Key stakeholders, 3. Officers & members.

KEY DECISION:

Report to Cabinet and Council.

PORTFOLIO:

Environment and Sustainability

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:

None

DISCUSSION:

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability introduced the report and explained that the strategy was being brought back through the formal adoption process following revisions that were made to the Strategy as a result of the Environment Agency assurance process. The Portfolio Holder emphasised that there was no financial commitment required nor any legal obligation for NFDC to undertake the works identified. He explained that NFDC would take a lead role in developing an investment plan through work with the relevant partners. The Council had a positive track record of this type of work and the gaining of funds for the maintenance of Hurst Spit was highlighted as an example of the Council being both proactive and successful on this matter.

The Portfolio Holder gave his thanks to the Council’s coastal team, to BCP Council and to the technical consultants, for their dedication and expertise in delivering this significant piece of work.

The Service Manager for Coastal provided further information on the report and explained that the Strategy provides a 100 year vision for flood and coastal erosion risk management, including the identification of and mitigation of risks. Cabinet heard that without the Strategy being adopted, the Council would face a much harder challenge to draw down funding of grant in aid (FDGiA) from the Environment Agency.

The Environment Agency’s assurance process focused on affordability, investment planning, and the starting points of the options for some of the management units.

In addressing points raised by the EA there was a need to undertake some limited revisions to the strategy report, the starting points of some of the pathways and to expand on investment planning within a revised Strategic Appraisal Report (StAR).

Partnership funding requirements for the first 20 years had reduced from £39 million to £13 million, which the Service Manager for Coastal acknowledged as posing a significant challenge, with investment planning to identify the potential funding sources being a key element of the process.

Although NFDC has no statutory duty to deliver this identified works or provide the funding, the Strategy does give the Council the ability to aim to deliver the projects identified.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness congratulated the Coastal team and its partners for the collaborative work undertaken.

A non-Cabinet member referenced works to Barton clifftops and the Service Manager of Coastal explained that the Council had long identified works at this site and that some elements had been tendered, however the cost was above the relevant budget and therefore additional funding streams, such as through the Capital Bid programme and CIL funding would be considered.

Cabinet acknowledged that coastal erosion and the impact it has on the District’s coastline and beach huts was an important issue.