Agenda item

To consider the Christchurch Bay Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy.

The Service Manager of Coastal introduced the item and provided a summary of the item to the Panel. The main points were as follows:

·       Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP), New Forest District Council (NFDC), and the Environment Agency (EA) had been working to develop a new Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) strategy for Christchurch Bay and Harbour since the Spring of 2021 and has been fully funded through grant aid provision from the EA to BCP Council.

·       . There had been extensive engagement with local communities, officers, members and statutory stakeholders alike to identify and subsequently recommend an adaptive approach to how the risks of coastal flooding and erosion can be managed sustainably over the next 100 years in a changing climate.

·       The Strategy identified where, when and what type of works will be required to manage and address the risks of coastal flooding and erosion over the next century and what the costs of delivering the identified measures.

·       As Coast Protection Authorities, BCP and NFDC do not have any statutory duty to undertake coast protection work but can use permissive powers to protect the coastline and work with communities to help them adapt to future coastal change.

·       This strategy, that covers the Christchurch Bay frontage focus is on the Western side of the District as this was where the greatest risk is to our coastline, through storm impacts, coastal erosion and assets with a reducing lifespan.

·       A further strategy (concerning Lymington to Redbridge) may be considered by the EA, as contained in their Longer-Term Forward Plan, but would not likely come to fruition until after the completion of the Hurst to Lymington strategy, due September 2026.

·       The respective councils were now looking to take the strategy through their decision-making process to be adopted before being submitted to the EA for the formal assurance process, likely happening in the early part of 2025.

·       An important aspect of the adoption of the Strategy was that it did not guarantee funding from the EA or central Government, but it also does not commit NFDC to funding any aspects of the projects.

·       . The Strategy sits at the second level of shoreline management, below the Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) which are the high-level overarching policy. The Strategy itself contains the risk, cost options, delivery and implementation of the actions required to provide coastal erosion management.

·       The Strategy provides a 100-year risk assessment and subsequent list of protective actions to reduce significant flooding or erosion risk across the bay. The wider coastal area face coastal impacts from sea level rise, climate change and storms. The Strategy development process analysed the impact to properties, assets, the local environment and considered how the risk to these could be addressed and mitigated against. The Strategy aligns with the SMP policies already in place at a District level and it identifies options that would be environmentally and financially viable, were funding made available.

·       The defences across the BCP and NFDC sea front are coming to the end of their lifespan. Christchurch bay was given as an example and the sea walls were referenced as nearing the end of their life cycle. The Strategy would enable BCP and NFDC Councils to address the issues experienced in the past with sea wall failures and beach front losses.

·       In terms of risk, circa 1200 properties were identified as being at risk due to coastal erosion over the next 100-year period. This figure was split between Barton on Sea and Milford on Sea. Along with around 139 properties at Milford on Sea at risk of flooding.

·       There was further risk to assets, such as toilet blocks, car parks, beach huts and infrastructure around Christchurch Bay frontage.

·       The Barton on Sea project of cliff stabilisation and drainage works was estimated to cost £27million. £3million of this would potentially be made available by Grant Aid from the EA. Therefore, there was a large funding gap identified.

·       On Hordle to Milford, the works included a combination of rock works, , beach recharge, works to existing groynes and sea wall systems. The cost of this was estimated at between £10million - £30million with the projected Grant Aid figure to be £4million. Therefore, significant partnership funding was required to meet the costs needed. This would be a partnership funding challenge in order to implement the actions of the Strategy.

·       Since 2021, the Strategy has undergone significant engagement through events held at Milford, Christchurch and other areas within the region. There have been online briefings held for both Councillors and members of the public to inform what work has been undertaken in developing the Strategy. There was, therefore, a high level of awareness on this topic and a firm understanding of the requirements of the Council.

·       Support and endorsement of the recommendations contained within the report were being sought from the Panel, whereby members acknowledge the risk involved to the District from flooding and coastal erosion and the big funding challenge involved to implement the mitigation measures.

After the report summary was given, members had the opportunity to make comments and ask questions. These were as follows:

·       On the funding challenge, members were reminded that there was no commitment on NFDC to fund the Strategy. What was being asked of NFDC was to adopt the strategy and its component policies so that funding could then be sought to implement the necessary measures. The creation of the Strategy and its adoption would act as an imperative step in submitting a business case to the EA for funding, along with other organisations. In order to secure funding, there had to be an identified plan and solution, which was contained within the Strategy itself.

·       On questions regarding a strategy for the Eastern side of the District, the Panel were told that there was a Lymington to Redbridge strategy being considered within the EA’s Longer Term Forward Plan. It was highlighted that the EA had responsibility for coastal flooding whereas NFDC were the coastal protection authority for coastal erosion.

·       Thanks was given to officers of NFDC and BCP Council for their work on the strategy. It was acknowledged that the thorough and detailed Strategy would provide a substantial case for grant funding.

·       Following a question on Taddiford clifftop, it was explained that the SMP in which Taddiford was considered Had a management policy of no active intervention. It was deemed that there was no material asset or property at risk on that stretch of clifftop. Furthermore, erosion of that specific area of cliff was considered positive as it would add natural material and sediment to the beach which would supply material to the existing beaches to the east.

·       On a follow up question regarding the Eastern section of the District, the Service Manager of Coastal explained that the majority of the east coastline frontage was predominantly private and undefended. Further contact would be made with the EA where concerns would be relayed.

RESOLVED:

That the Panel supported the intended Cabinet recommendations as set out in the report.