Sidmouth Beach Management Plan – problem-solving proposal
PROJECT AIMS: This is not a good set of Aims according to FCERM as Aims should not prejudge outcomes. It should read something like ‘prevent erosion of the beach and flooding of the town.
1) Maintain the 1990’s Sidmouth Coastal Defence Scheme Standard of Service Having read the OBC it appears that they are going to do this by rearranging the pebbles.
2) Reduce the rate of beach and cliff erosion to the east of the River Sid (East Beach)
3) Carry out (1) and (2) in an integrated, justifiable and sustainable way. As they are not changing the Town Beach there is nothing to integrate unless they are talking about the splash wall.
PREFERRED OPTION:
The problem with the Preferred Option is that it does not appear to achieve Aim 3:
a) The Preferred Option does not appear to be justifiable for the following reasons:
Problem 1: SUPERGROYNE: the modelling that has been used to justify building a supergroyne is questionable, as it will not protect the entirety of the Eastern cliffs from erosion The modelling appears sound but it will not protect all the cliffs.
| Reasons | Evidence | Source |
| Rates of cliff erosion at Eastern Beach have accelerated since 2000 | Photographic evidence 1860s to date | Erosion at Sidmouth in pictures – Vision Group for Sidmouth |
| In 2019, the SVA put on a comprehensive show of how the cliffs have evolved. | The Lost Cliffs of Sidmouth > Exhibition – Vision Group for Sidmouth | |
| The Plymouth study 2020 demonstrates there will be greater rates of erosion than the modelling anticipated. | Erosion is at least ten times faster than the original Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2) predictions. | 6a CCMA briefing paper V4.pdf |
| The supergroyne is likely to produce an effect known as ‘terminal erosion’… In this case, it means that the groyne will accelerate erosion to the east thus increasing the threat to Laskeys Lane and Alma Lane residents. | Beach Management Plan: an analysis of the Plymouth report – Vision Group for Sidmouth | |
| The study suggests that parts of the coastline at Seaton, areas either side of Branscombe and East of the River Sid at Sidmouth may see more erosion than previously predicted. | 13 October 2020 – Councillors consider University of Plymouth research on coastal change in East Devon – East Devon | |
Problem 2: SUPERGROYNE: the modelling that has been used to justify building a supergroyne is questionable, as the exact size and dimensions are not clear:
| Reasons | Evidence | Source |
| At the public consultation, the length of the supergroyne was 120m | This is currently estimated at about 120m compared to the town beach structures of about 75m long. | PowerPoint Presentation |
| The draft Outline Business Case gives 100 to 120m | To maintain beach levels in front of the cliff 1no. approximately 100m to 120m long rock groyne will be constructed. | Press releases about the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan – 4th June 2018 – ‘Outline business case for Sidmouth and East Beach Management Scheme makes steady progress’ – East Devon |
| At the FAQs on the EDDC website, the length is below 100m | Here the drawings show a design for the supergroyne where it is described as ‘100 metres approximately’, but is actually drawn at 96.5 metres. | https://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/3721314/pb6525-06-p3-preferred-option-area-c-groyne-section.pdf |
| The Long List Appraisals Report shows the supergroyne at 70-75 m long – ie, the same length as the nearest groyne.
Iunstn which case, the visual intrusiveness of the supergroyne could not have been appreciated |
This image was also recently used to illustrate the presentation of the Plymouth University report to the Strategic Planning Committee.
This photoshopped image of the supergroyne has clearly been lifted from a groyne on Main Beach, which is only 75 metres long. In fact, it is slightly truncated, making it approximately 70 metres long. |
6a CCMA briefing paper V4.pdf |
Problem 2: SUPERGROYNE: the economics that was used to choose the Preferred Option over other options is questionable
| Justifications | Evidence | Source | |
| In 2016, the Preferred Option was chosen over either Option 4 or Option 4B on the grounds of cost. | The project team explained that it would be unlikely that the magnitude of the costs of Option 4 (with a potential £11.1 m partnership funding shortfall) could be reduced so much as to alter the recommendations made within the BMP. Therefore it has been concluded that Option 1 – to repair and shorten the length of both the current freestanding section of the training wall and East Pier, and to construct one short/low level rock groyne to the east of the River Sid, to aid retention of a healthy beach as it transitions, should progress to outline design unless significantly more partnership funding can be found. |
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: looking for funding for the ‘technically preferred’ option 4b (as the press report is no longer available on EDDC website) | |
| Halcrow’s daunting illustration of shore parallel breakwaters for Sidmouth (option 4) was rejected. On the other hand, the much less invasive option 4B – the Technically Preferred Option – was voted for. |
Notice how poorly illustrated the tombolos are and how closely spaced (over engineered) the shore parallel breakwaters are, which will have inflated the cost estimate. (Option 4)
It is very possible that shore parallel breakwaters (or oblique ones) and tombolos like those in Norfolk would have enthused the residents and business in Sidmouth and attracted more local funding and tourism grants. (Option 4B) |
Sidmouth Beach Management Plan: Offshore islands would reduce the need to raise the splash wall – Vision Group for Sidmouth | |
| There has been confusion over what Options 4 and 4B are offering | Cllr Booth has questioned the transparency of the process, and why option 4B was only added once a public consultation was underway. | Sidmouth beach plan: ‘too big a decision to get wrong’ – News – Sidmouth Herald | |
| The two Options have been routinely confused with each other – as with this typical mix-up over illustrations in the press | D-day looms on option to protect £85m of Sidmouth property | Sidmouth Herald | ||
| A commitment was made to determine the exact costs of 4 and 4B:
In September 2016, a funding subgroup was formed to see if the higher level of funding would be available for option 4B. “If it can do so in the next six months, the preferred option could change.” This has not been carried out. |
Cllr Gardner said 4B could cost much less than currently estimated, but neither option can be properly costed without computer modelling and tank testing.
Cllr Matt Booth, who sits on the new subgroup, said: “The newly formed funding subgroup will seek funding opportunities not only for the breakwaters, but also the more affordable option of rock groynes and beach recharging and recycling.” |
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: looking for funding for the ‘technically preferred’ option 4b >>> latest reports (as the press report is no longer available on EDDC website)
Sidmouth beach plan – questions over ongoing costs | Sidmouth Herald |
|
|
“More careful consideration is needed, starting with comparative modelling.” (Vision Group for Sidmouth report August 2016) |
The benefits of Option 1 seem to have been exaggerated.
The costs of modelling and of maintaining Option 1 may have been miscalculated or misrepresented eg: 2.5. An early investment in computer modelling should significantly reduce the uncertainty of long-term planning cost-predictions, which currently include a 60% optimism bias. |
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: “More careful consideration is needed, starting with comparative modelling.” | |
Problem 3: Splash Wall: the modelling that has been used to justify raising the Splash Wall is questionable
| Reasons | Evidence | Source |
| There is no modelling available | There is no evidence in the OBC. The Options and the modelling done of the Preferred Option are there in detail but then the Splash Wall suddenly appears with no background. | Press releases about the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan – 4th June 2018 – ‘Outline business case for Sidmouth and East Beach Management Scheme makes steady progress’ – East Devon |
| There have been increases in height of the Splash Wall:
1: In June 2018, the height was to be half that now proposed. |
Royal HaskoningDHV’s thorough tests and methodical approach has resulted in a proposal to recharge the beach with a 10m flat section at the top, and a suggested increase in the height of the splash wall of up to 0.5m from its existing level, with sections of lower height where the beach is less exposed. | Press releases about the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan – 4th June 2018 – ‘Outline business case for Sidmouth and East Beach Management Scheme makes steady progress’ – East Devon |
| 2: At the meeting of the BMP steering group in August 2019, it was recorded that there is ‘concern’. |
The existing low splash wall which runs along the landward side of the promenade will be raised by approximately 0.6m, which is up to a final height of approximately 1.0m, to reduce the amount of wave overtopping that reaches Sidmouth Town. |
SBMPSG 220819 Agenda v2 |
| It is currently anticipated that this wall will need to be at one metre above the promenade to contain wave overtopping. | Press releases about the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan – 30th August 2019 – ‘Sidmouth Beach Management Scheme Steering Group meeting update (August 2019)’ – East Devon | |
| 3: In January 2020, a much higher level was referred to justify further height increases. | The Government is requiring coastal projects to have a minimum allowance for 1.2m of sea-level rise in the future due to global warming | Press releases about the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan – 16th January 2020 – ‘Temporary glass flood defence panel to be tested on Sidmouth esplanade as part of Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan’ – East Devon |
| An incremental approach:
The August 2019 minutes of the Steering Group state that the idea of incrementally increasing the splash wall was not dismissed and was an option that ‘could be considered’. |
We are not obliged to erect sea defences today according to predictions for levels in 100 years – and that this could be done in stages over time.
The Environment Agency acknowledge that in sensitive and accessible locations, an incremental approach is justified. |
30 August 2019 – Sidmouth Beach Management Scheme Steering Group meeting update (August 2019) – East Devon |
| Climate change impacts:
Sidmouth will not face sea level rises of 1 metre plus. |
Sea level rise relative to the land is the combination of absolute sea level rise and vertical land movements. By 2100 relative sea level could have risen by as much as 80 cm around some parts of the UK coast (4). | Coastal floods – United Kingdom – Climatechangepost.com |
| Sidmouth will not be nearly as badly affected as other coastal areas. | Flood Maps | |
| Their charts show that the need for a higher wall will not occur until nearly 2117 perhap? |
Numerical Modelling appendix E pgs 22/3/4 But I don’t understand them!!! |
Problem 4: SPLASH WALL: the economics is questionable:
| Reasons | Evidence | Source |
| No costing has been given for Splash Walls of any type. | Depends on design and if it were raised when units were due to be replaced. | Sidmouth Beach Management Plan: Frequently Asked Questions – Which option would be cheaper in the event that the height needs to be raised? – East Devon |
Problem 5: SPLASH WALL: this structure is not justifiable because it will be rejected at the planning application stage
| Reasons | Evidence | Source |
| A splash wall will have a serious visual impact on the seafront. | We have to consider the ‘Splash Wall’ as a feature which will have a considerable effect on the attractiveness of Sidmouth as a tourist destination. | Our doc BMP May 2018 |
| It will be detrimental to the setting and significance of a range of heritage assets and many listed buildings on the Esplanade. |
Beach Management Plan – Vision Group for Sidmouth
Pictures of proposed splash wall 2019 Futures Forum: Sidmouth has the largest number of listed buildings in East Devon |
|
|
A large splash wall will not pass planning as it will contravene Listed Building legislation |
The law in 4.31 and the ruling 4.32 apply to raising the height of the splash wall at Sidmouth. 4.31 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, places a statutory duty on local planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. |
ukpga_19900009_en.pdf |
b) The Preferred Option does not appear to be sustainable for the following reasons:
Problem 1: BEACH RECHARGING: over its 100 year lifetime, the Preferred Option will rely on regular beach recycling and recharging to achieve Aims 1 and 2.
| Reasons | Evidence | Source |
| By most definitions of sustainable development, the Preferred Option fails – and in particular, the burden placed on further generations to regularly replenish the beach is not sustainable.
|
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need” | East Devon District Council East Devon Local Plan 2006 to 2026 |
| It must be recognised that, in the very long term, continuing to defend such stretches of shoreline may be technically unsustainable |
SDAD_SMP2_parts1to5_FINAL.pdf | |
| In new development, however, we need to also consider whole-life carbon emissions and resource depletion. This includes both “in-use” energy efficiency and “embodied” carbon emission contained within the construction process such as the production, supply and recycling of materials. | Unsustainable over-development in East Devon – Vision Group for Sidmouth | |
| Funding is not included in the OBC | Sidmouth Beach Management Plan: Frequently Asked Questions – East Devon | |
| Recharging is unlikely to be sustained over the next 100 years |
The scheme’s aim is to maintain the 1990’s Sidmouth Coastal Defence Scheme Standard of Service |
25 April 2018 – High levels of interest from public in Sidmouth Beach Management Scheme exhibition on April 19 – East Devon |
| Phase II was monitored post-construction to assess the need (or otherwise) for further recycling of sediment along the frontage, and/or periodic further beach recharge. However, such works have only involved one single period of beach recycling, carried out in 2015, to re-distribute beach sediment along the Sidmouth town frontage. | sidmouth-and-east-bmp_final_23-01-2017.pdf | |
|
“It is extremely unlikely – I would say impossible – that EDDC can ringfence monies for the next 100-odd years for recharging the beach. “Selecting an option that requires long-term maintenance in such an uncertain financial climate has to be madness. District councils all over the country are facing huge financial challenges due to continued government cutbacks. How can we expect beach recharging to be done?” |
Sidmouth beach plan – questions over ongoing costs | Sidmouth Herald | |
| EDDC has consistently failed to recharge Main Beach in accordance with the 1990s scheme, despite the fact that Main Beach is more visible, much more used, and much more accessible. It is extremely unlikely that EDDC will maintain the ‘perfect’ beach with which the comparison is made. |
Beach Management Plan, Revetment part 2 – Vision Group for Sidmouth | |
| Beach nourishment is the latest chapter in a never-ending tale of erosion. | The problems with rebuilding beaches – YouTube |
Problem 2: SPLASH WALL: over its 100 year lifetime, the Preferred Option will rely on the regular raising of the Splash Wall
| Reasons | Evidence | Source |
| The Environment Agency strategy for flood and coastal erosion says walls are not sustainable: we cannot keep on raising them. |
The fix for inundation might seem pretty simple: just erect tall seawalls and other barriers to keep the ocean at bay. But barriers can fail… “Fundamentally, there is an issue with the concept of building walls to stop flooding,” says Rachel Gittman, an environmental scientist and ecologist at East Carolina University. “We should not be thinking that we can stop every flood.” |
Walls Won’t Save Our Cities From Rising Seas. Here’s What Will |
c) The Preferred Option does not appear to be integrated for the following reasons:
The Supergroyne by itself does not adequately achieve Aims 1 and 2 of the Project
Problem: the Splash Wall was added to the Preferred Option at a later date in order to compensate for the inadequacy of the functionality of the Supergroyne and Recharging
Don’t think this is true, I think the Splash wall is because they are not doing any work on the Town beach other than recharging. I don’t think the Supergroyne is supposed to have any effect on the town frontage?
| Reasons | Evidence | Source |
|
The Preferred Option, when adopted in 2016/17, only referred to the ‘wall’ at Pennington Point |
Therefore it has been concluded that Option 1 – to repair and shorten the length of both the current freestanding section of the training wall and East Pier, and to construct one short/low level rock groyne to the east of the River Sid, to aid retention of a healthy beach as it transitions, should progress to outline design | Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: looking for funding for the ‘technically preferred’ option 4b |
|
The Splash Wall was added to the Preferred Option after it was adopted
|
The Preferred Option was selected in 2016/17 – prior to the latest sea-level estimates | Press releases about the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan – 6th April 2017 – ‘Cabinet adopts Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan’ – East Devon |
| Splash Wall FAQs appear on EDDC website at a much later stage | Sidmouth Beach Management Plan: Frequently Asked Questions – What is the glass panel installed on Sidmouth seafront, and how does it fit with the BMP? – East Devon | |
| Splash Wall designs were only introduced to the public in 2018 | Press releases about the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan – 28th March 2018 – ‘Public exhibition for Sidmouth and East Beach Management Scheme to be held at Kennaway House Sidmouth, 19 April 2018’ – East Devon |
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
The following Alternative Options fulfil the Project Aims:
1: Maintain the 1990’s Sidmouth Coastal Defence Scheme Standard of Service
2: Reduce the rate of beach and cliff erosion to the east of the River Sid (East Beach)
3: Carry out (1) and (2) in an integrated, justifiable and sustainable way.
a) The Alternative Solutions are justifiable for the following reasons:
Solution 1a: ROCK ISLANDS: the modelling that has been used to reject building rock islands is questionable and so unjustifiable:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
| Calls to allow for proper modelling of Option 4B were dismissed |
As Tony Burch (Assistant Project Manager and Senior Technical Consultant) and Tony Flux (who holds a senior position within the National Trust and a member of the BMP steering group) have both said it is essential that all options are exhausted to get this right – including tank testing. It is of great concern that this is being set up as a cost saving exercise and only one option will be tank tested. |
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: “We cannot and will not request that expert advice is altered because some stakeholders are not getting the answers they wish to hear.”
‘Public being misled over Sidmouth’s beach management plan’ – claim | Sidmouth Herald |
| The 2016 public consultation, which favoured the rock islands, was all too readily dismissed | The public has spoken and more breakwaters are the preferred choice to shore up Sidmouth seafront – but less than one per cent of the town’s population turned out to vote. | 1% turnout for Sidmouth beach protection vote – News – Sidmouth Herald |
| There are several tested, alternative modellings for rock islands.
Offshore islands, breakwaters or reefs would reduce the need to raise the splash wall. |
A shallow foreshore will cause waves to break there – before they reach the beach.
For example: shore parallel breakwaters in Norfolk |
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF ARTIFICIAL REEF OFFSHORE BREAKWATER AT SEA PALLING ON THE NORFOLK COAST |
Solution 1b: ROCK ISLANDS: the economics that was used to reject the preferred technical option over other options is questionable and so unjustifiable:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source | |
| The costs given for the rock islands are excessive – if compared to quotes provided by contractors in the field | Knights Brown, a long-established sea defence contractor, price an offshore island the size of the larger existing one at £5.5 million. This compares with the EDDC estimate of £9 million. They previously said £35 million, and then £13 million.
Interestingly, a small island the same size as the smaller of our existing ones, was priced at £2 |
Coasts, Rivers & Ports | Knights Brown | Civil Engineering
NORTH PORTSEA ISLAND COASTAL DEFENCES PHASE 2 | Knights Brown Major Engineering Project to Safeguard Iconic Aberavon Seafront |
Solution 2a: ROCK REVETMENT: qualified official justification has been given
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
| In March 2020, the County Councillor called for emergency rock revetment | Cllr Hughes said that some emergency action may need to be taken, for which planning permission is not required, which could include filling the cave that appeared and putting some sort of revetment in place to protect the cliffs. | Call for ’emergency action’ after latest Sidmouth cliff fall | sidmouthherald.co.uk |
| A survey was subsequently commissioned | Cllr Stuart Hughes has said that he will be using some of his locality budget to carry out a further cliff survey and has asked the contractor’s currently re-building the adjacent Alma Bridge to assist in rearranging the small section of rock revetment at Pennington Point that has been moved by the storms. | Councillor funds cliff erosion survey | sidmouthherald.co.uk |
| However, the “Sidmouth Pennington Point Short Term Rock Armour improvements” report of July 2020 considered this was not an emergency | However we will continually review the situation, and should a period of increased erosion occur, and it qualifies for emergency works, we will investigate adding additional rock armour, and using emergency powers to carry out the works. | Beach Management Plan: Saving Pennington Point |
| The local MP supports emergency works | We need emergency action from East Devon District Council now | Today’s cliff fall in Sidmouth | Simon Jupp |
Solution 2b: ROCK REVETMENT: the economics that was used to reject the rock armouring over other options is questionable and so unjustifiable:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
Solution 2c: ROCK REVETMENT: there have been no fossil finds on East Beach checking with Roger Trend
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
| The Natural England report in 2017 rebuffed demands for rock revetment | The East Cliff section provides key evidence for the environmental transition between the two rock units and is also known to yield a particularly diverse fauna of fossils.
Conclusion: A rock revetment is a hard coastal defence and as such does not fit with SMP policy and does not allow for any mitigation of the permanent negative impacts coastal defences will have on the OUV of the WHS and the geological interests of the SSSI. |
Position statement in regards to a rock revetment at east beach v 2 |
Solution 2d: ROCK REVETMENT: This option has been seriously considered several times over many years, has been recommended and accepted, and can therefore be justified
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
| In 2002, Haskoning recommended a rock revetment along East Beach |
On page 2 the Aims state: “English Nature have specified that due to the international designations which protect this site, a scheme will only be considered if it does not completely stop erosion. In order to comply with English Nature, it is proposed that a revetment be constructed with a crest level that would allow some overtopping – ideally the revetment should simulate the same conditions at the cliff toe that would prevail with a full beach fronting the cliffs.” On page 13 the conclusions state: “A revetment with a crest level of 3.5 metres ODN constructed within the range of 0 to 15 metres from the cliff face would simulate the conditions that prevailed under the interpreted 1987 beach conditions.” and the recommendations state: “A revetment of varying height be constructed along the frontage. A crest of 4.0 metres ODN at the western end (Pennington Point), where the frontage is more susceptible to cliff falls, tapering to 3.5 metres ODN over the remaining frontage.” |
64. 2002-Sidmouth-P.Point-WaveModelling-PH-3H6923
Beach Management Plan, Revetment part 2 – Vision Group for Sidmouth |
| Rock revetment was then considered in 2003 by the Devon County Council | Report of Committee Site Visit Planning/Highway Consultation “East Devon District: Proposed Rock Revetment Designed to Reduce Erosion of the Cliff Face at Pennington Point, Sidmouth” Date Consultation Received by the County Council: 28 January 2003 Report of the County Environment Director |
Futures Forum: 28th January 2003: “EDDC is proposing a coast protection scheme aimed at reducing the rate of cliff erosion at Pennington Point. The scheme would protect the properties located at the top of Salcombe Hill and the Alma Bridge.” |
| In 2003, a planning application was made for EDDC’s own rock revetment proposal for East Beach, | East Devon Planning Application No. 03/P0033 | 03/P0033 | Rock Revetment Structure | Pennington Point Sea Defence Cliff Road Salcombe Hill Sidmouth Devon |
| In 2011, residents of the properties above Pennington Point proposed such a scheme | Residents devise £900k bid to halt Sidmouth cliff erosion CLIFF-top residents have devised a £900,000 scheme they hope will stop Sidmouth’s crumbling coastline from claiming their homes |
|
| The application was withdrawn | The application to protect the cliff with rock revetment had been withdraw to await the recommendations of the working party | cabinet-mins-010212.pdf |
| In 2017, the former chair of the BMP Steering Group voiced his opposition to any such scheme | The East Devon AONB has given us clear and consistent guidance on the unsuitability of a rock revetment for East Beach. Furthermore, their position gives the district’s planning officers no alternative but to recommend to refuse any applications for planning permission for this type of coastal and flooding defence in this location should such an application be made. Following extensive debate, with many views being expressed, it has become clear to the SG that rock revetment is unacceptable. | Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: Cabinet approves next stage |
| The former local MP was in favour of rock revetment |
Rock revetment still remains highly controversial within the Sidmouth community and beyond, many of whom would still prefer this solution:
|
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: to meet on 13th September >>> ensuring clear and accurate information is available so that decisions may be made on a responsible and informed basis |
Solution 2e: ROCK REVETMENT: This option has been undertaken at other similar locations on the SW Coast and can therefore be justified
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
| In Seaton, as reported March 2018 | Does Seaton BMP with rock revetment and good drainage from the cliff top set a positive precedent for agreement from NE, WHS for our own BMP?
Well, no because “Seaton already has a rock revetment and it also has a different environmental designation from Sidmouth”.
|
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: meeting Thursday 15th March >>> report |
| In Paignton, as reported August 2017 | Thousands of tonnes of heavy grade “rock armour” from Chywoon Quarry, near Falmouth, are being shipped up the coast for a major protection scheme where cliffs at Hollicombe are crumbling and threatening the branchline from Torquay to Paignton. | Futures Forum: Rock armouring to protect South Devon coast |
| In Branscombe, in 2014 | In February 2014, the worst storms in a generation hit the south Devon coast. Among those affected were the owners of five beach chalets at Branscombe… Natural England won’t let the owners move shingle… They also adhere to a “Shoreline Management Plan”, which says that there should be “no active intervention” to protect the beach from erosion.
In September 2014, the VGS representative on the SMP2 and the BMP stated in an email to the chair of the BMP steering group: “I also managed to establish that the SMP2 policies are not rigid rules.”. |
Rock armour at Branscombe beach – Vision Group for Sidmouth |
| Natural England insist Sidmouth and Branscombe cannot be compared:
… the geological interests impacted are not as sensitive as those at |
Position statement in regards to a rock revetment at east beach v 2 | |
| At Clifton, Sidmouth: the western cliffs | “We can reflect on what has happened in the past because if rock armour similar to that which was placed at Clifton (between Main and West Beach)… had been replicated east of the Sid and which Consulting Geologist Dr Geoffrey Kellaway fought for… Then we wouldn’t be in the position we are in today.” | Futures Forum: Sidmouth Beach Management Plan @ Streetlife |
|
“I’ve been studying this area ever since consulting geologist and member of the Geographical Survey Dr Geoffrey Kellaway contacted me and came to Sidmouth back in the early 90’s and warned of the consequences of building hard rock off shore breakwaters in a soft rock area. “He was absolutely correct as we have seen enhanced erosion, he also quite rightly claimed that rock revetment at the toe of the cliff would be environmentally acceptable and would dissipate wave action. “This would still allow cliff falls until the angle of repose at the top was reached however Natual England (formerly English Nature) and Jurassic Coast WHS objected and we are where we are today and still awaiting an affordable Beach Management Plan scheme..” |
Tunnel exposure could lead to catastrophic cliff fall | sidmouth.nub.news | |
| In West Bay in 2005 | “Protecting the Jurassic Coast” | Beach Management Plan: rock armour at West Bay, Dorset – Vision Group for Sidmouth |
| West Bay is internationally important for its World Heritage Site (Jurassic Coast)… We have taken great care in working closely with the conservation and heritage organisations. These include Natural England, Jurassic Coast Team, Historic England, the Marine Management Organisation as well as Dorset County Council. | 5 things you need to know about the upcoming sea defence work at West Bay | |
|
Note that whilst Natural England ‘objects’, the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site agreed to the proposals: “balance the needs of local communities, the economy and the environment, to secure a sustainable and affordable approach to the threat while protecting natural interests” |
West Bay Dorset can manage their beach! – Vision Group for Sidmouth
|
|
Solution 3a: Jetty/Pier: adding a landing platform to an offshore island is justifiable
Dunnings Pier may be of use here. He never fully completed it as it became v.expensive but it still allowed him to land coal there and it survived for a long time … was eventually demolished as part of one sea defence scheme, I’ll check up.
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
| A third offshore island would provide a lagoon and safe harbour for a regular ferry service and safer anchorage for passing sailing craft | Tomboloas: Coastal formation of beach material developed by refraction, diffraction and longshore drift to form a “neck” connecting a coast to an offshore island or breakwater. | sidmouth-and-east-bmp_final_23-01-2017.pdf |
| Providing offshore interest and activity | The area surrounding a river, lake, lagoon or sea coast acts as a transition zone between water and land. Therefore, turning the water banks into dynamic and appealing public spaces helps to establish a certain balance between the stiffness of the built environment and the fluidity of water. | Between Water and Land: 10 Projects of Promenades and Waterfronts | ArchDaily |
| Unjustified because may make it more difficult to launch boats at Port Royal due to local currents, and possible terminal erosion. | ||
Solution 4a: RECURVED WALL: adding an increased ‘recurve’ to the existing sea walls is justifiable
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
| The current sea wall would absorb the impact | The JBA Trust’s wave tank shows the impact of different types of coastal defences on the rate of overtopping and resulting coastal flooding. This recurve wall redirects the wave back out to sea, preventing any overtopping. | Wave tank showing impact of coastal defence – recurve wall – YouTube |
| The Esplandade can be raised to the height of the dwarf wall and raised crossings installed, traffic calming. | ||
Solution 4a: REVERSE BEACH EROSION: rebuilding beaches naturally is justified
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
| Sustainable, no ongoing maintenance. Relatively cheap. | Reverse beach erosion and build a sand beach with Sandgrabber(tm), an environmentally friendly, proven and lowcost system that uses the energy and sand contained in wind-driven waves to rebuild beaches. | Reverse Beach Erosion with Sandgrabber – YouTube |
| The Sandsaver, is improved technology based on past proven technology, previously known as “The Sandgrabber”. | Natural Solution to Beach Erosion | Stop Beach Erosion | Sandsaver | Dredging Alternatives | |
Solution 5 : Slow the waves down by using a Geotextile tube
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
.
b) The Alternative Solutions are sustainable for the following reasons:
Solution 1a: ROCK ISLANDS: two/three small new islands would carry out Aims 1 and 2 over a period of at least 100 years and would not require further large-scale engineering
after the initial build?
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
Solution 1b: Rock Islands:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
Solution 2a: Rock Revetment:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
Solution 2b: Rock Revetment: this would carry out Aims 1 and 2 over a period of at least 100 years and would not require further large-scale engineering
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
c) The Alternative Solutions are integrated for the following reasons:
Solution 1a: Rock Islands and Rock Revetment: together, these would deflect the sea from the base of the East Beach cliffs more efficiently than the Preferred Option
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
|
The supergroyne would cause ‘terminal erosion’ leading to outflanking and a threat to householders further east, in locations such as Laskeys Lane and Alma Lane. |
The Plymouth report takes into account rising sea levels, whereas the SMP2 numbers do not: if sea levels rise, then the waves will hit the cliffs at East Beach more frequently. Plymouth have based their predictions upon measurements taken since 1998 |
6a CCMA briefing paper V4.pdf
Beach Management Plan: an analysis of the Plymouth report – Vision Group for Sidmouth |
Solution 1b: Rock Islands and Rock Revetment:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
Solution 1c: Rock Islands and Rock Revetment:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
Solution 1d: Rock Islands and Rock Revetment:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
Solution 1e: Rock Islands and Rock Revetment:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
Solution 2a: ROCK ISLANDS AND SPLASH WALL: offshore islands would reduce the need to raise the splash wall
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
|
An offshore island, as was originally proposed by Posford Duvivier in 1990, would reduce the need for a splash wall So would a Geotextile tube |
Unfortunately, the report has been destroyed | Sidmouth Beach Management Plan: Offshore islands would reduce the need to raise the splash wall – Vision Group for Sidmouth |
Solution 3a:
| Justifications | Evidence | Source |
.