STATEMENT
OF EVIDENCE
1. Scarborough Borough Council's Position
1.1 The Borough of Scarborough in North
Yorkshire occupies all of the County's coastal frontage which
extends a total of 67 km from Staithes in the north to Speeton
in the south.
1.2 The make-up of the coastline is generally
unspoilt, cliffed with major population centres at Whitby, Scarborough
and Filey. There are nevertheless smaller centres of population
at a number of coastal villages. Approximately 80 per cent of
the coastline is designated as Heritage Coast and/or National
Park. Sites of special scientific interest abound.
1.3 At the present time approximately 14
km of the coastline is protected by man-made defences varying
in type and form of construction.
1.4 Within the context of flood and coastal
defence it is worthy of note that the Borough Council has operational
responsibility, under the auspices of The Coast Protection Act
1949, for Coast Protection and Flood Defence; it owns and operates
harbours at Staithes, Whitby, Scarborough and Filey (all of which
perform dual functions of commercial harbours and coast/flood
defences).
1.5 The Borough Council is the Planning
Authority for a significant part of the built environment within
the coastal margin of the Borough.
1.6 It is self-evident that the area is
heavily reliant upon tourism, with much of the coastal defences
(man-made and natural) being an inherent part of the tourism related
infrastructure, not least high quality amenity beaches and foreshores,
sea-front and cliff top hotel and leisure facilities. It is therefore
fundamental that in terms of coast and flood defence the safety
of residents and visitors in the area is of paramount importance
and is maintained.
1.7 The Borough Council is also the agent
to the Highway Authority in Scarborough town where significant
and strategic highway assets run immediately adjacent to coastal
and flood defences.
1.8 This very brief "portrait"
of the Borough Council's role locally illustrates the inextricable
linkage between coast/flood defence and the other facets of the
Council's business and responsibilities. It is within the above
context that Scarborough Borough Council offers its evidence.
1.9 The Borough Council has and continues
to maintain a very active interest and role in coast and flood
defence matters. It has a pedigree in the delivery of the service
based upon many years of local experience.
1.10 It has over nearly 25 years years consistently
set aside and utilised a significant amount of its own resources
to carry out works both in terms of revenue and capital. This,
set against a background of relatively reducing overall budget
provision. The considerable knowledge and commitment shown at
a local level by elected Members and Officers is testimony to
the pivotal role of the Council in coastal matters.
1.11 Audits of the coast protection and
flood defence elements of the Council's business have consistently
demonstrated efficient use of resources and this will be taken
forward under the ethos of best value.
1.12 The Council has acted as Lead Authority
in developing a Shoreline Management Plan which has now been adopted
by it and other local authorities as well as key interested agencies.
1.13 At a regional and national level the
Borough Council is Chair and Secretary to the North East Coastal
Authorities Group (NECAG) and is a member of the Technical Advisory
Group (TAG) for coastal management. It participates in the Local
Government Association's (LGA) Special Interest Group on Coastal
Issues and is currently Vice-Chair to this group.
1.14 Whilst this evidence highlights the
Borough Council's commitment and participation in the role of
coast and flood protection, such involvement is known to exist
within most local authorities around the coastline of England
and Wales. Maritime Councils continue to deliver the service in
partnership with interested agencies and most importantly with
the constituents they serve.
2. Effectiveness of MAFF Policy on Flood and Coastal
Defence
2.1 The Borough Council's evidence supports
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and Welsh
Office policy which is aimed at reducing the risks to people and
the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal
erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally
and economically sound and sustainable defence measures.
2.2 The proactive stance taken by MAFF in
issuing a framework of guidance through its series of publications
for the protection is welcomed and acknowledged, together with
its financial contribution towards the development of sustainable
coastal defence policies which is particularly welcomed and cannot
be unstated.
2.3 The statement in the first paragraph
of the Press Notice "current issues of concern" has
not been expanded upon. Generally those local authorities who
are promoting programmes of works feel they respond fully to MAFF
guidance.
2.4 Following the lead given by Standing
Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC),
MAFF has encouraged the creation of coastal groups around England
and Wales. Local authorities generally have proven record in the
delivery of the flood and coast protection service. In the Borough
Council's case this is ostensibly marine in nature.
2.5 The production and evolution of Shoreline
Management Plans (SMP's) has been embraced by local authorities
and other key agencies, in particular the Environment Agency,
although more work needs to be undertaken particularly in sensitively
protecting the natural environment and the integration of SMP's
in the planning system.
2.6 A more acceptable approach would be
for MAFF to openly state a commitment to protect the coastline
by formally adopting the coast protection policies contained in
the SMP's. This would permit a more transparent system at a regional
level and permit the involvement of politicians to agree and prioritise
the allocation of resources effectively. This allocation would
best reflect local needs which are set against a national policy
context.
2.7 MAFF has issued draft guidance for the
preparation of strategic studies which are starting to be commissioned/implemented
by local authorities and the Environment Agency. A similar approach
to that suggested for SMP's is required for strategic plans.
2.8 A better understanding of coastal processes
is now available through plans and strategic studies, which are
also identifying the on-going monitoring requirements. This is
regarded as essential when considering the implications of anticipated
climatic change and the future requirements for coastal and flood
defence.
2.9 The promotion of strategic research
and development is now undertaken on a co-ordinated and regional
basis. This already involves the coastal groups working with the
Environment Agency and other key organisations.
2.10 The decision making process and funding
allocation is now subjected to a national priority rating system.
This has highlighted national requirements in terms of coast protection
and flood defence provided transparency to the levels of coastal
protection and flood defence funding. This process has identified
schemes required nationally and has highlighted proposed schemes
which may not be sustainable as they are predominantly reliant
upon benefits rather than proven need.
2.11 The activities of the, presently, voluntary
coastal which promote co-ordination between local authorities,
Environment Agency and other key agencies, require the continued
support of MAFF. This support for the evolving role of maritime
local authorities and regional coastal groups in promoting and
managing coast protection programmes is essential for their sustainability.
MAFF's views and concerns on how local authorities are performing
are best addressed through the coastal groups to ensure a balanced
and comprehensive discussion is held on this important matter.
2.12 MAFF has found itself in a difficult
and resource constrained position with currently only some £38m
in MAFF grants available to local authorities in England and Wales.
2.13 The recently introduced national priority
rating score system already demonstrates that the Government requires
approximately three times this level of investment to secure a
reasonable level of protection for local authority frontages against
coastal erosion and flooding. A similar position can be advanced
for frontages managed directly by the Environment Agency and others.
However, it is the case that the scoring system may lead to rural
authorities reacting to events, rather than planning strategically.
The threshold score is often only achievable as a result of an
existing defence failure and this is at variance with the strategic
approach implicit in SMP's.
2.14 The current policy for the approval
process of schemes requires operating authorities to allocate
and expend substantial resources and funding to promote schemes
without any real knowledge of MAFF's views on the proposal. This
is, in part, as a result of MAFF's reluctance to formally adopt
SMP's or generally to offer meaningful feed-back at a very early
stage of scheme development. In view of the scale and inadequacy
relating to coastal defence, it is necessary for central government
to be involved.
2.15 MAFF have been critical of local authorities
for not addressing Category 4 Coast Protection Structures identified
in the Coast Protection Survey of England and Wales. The need
to decide what action is required is accepted, but in many cases
action has been delayed pending the production and adoption of
the SMP's. This is the case in the Borough Council's area.
2.16 The present arrangements for implementing
and funding of coast and flood protection works are seen by local
authorities as being fully accountable to the public through their
locally elected Members. Any substantial weakening or changes
in the role of local maritime authorities in the future delivery
of flood and coastal defence will be seen as contrary to the powers
conferred upon local Councils by the Coast Protection Act 1949.
3. Effectiveness of MAFF Policy on Social,
Economic and Environmental Considerations
3.1 MAFF through their welcomed support
of local authorities and the Environment Agency in the preparation
of SMP's has encouraged the identification of sustainable coastal
defence policies, which in turn also assist in directing future
development to the most appropriate locations. This approach reflects
the potentially excessive cost involved in the protection of the
nation's coastline in comparison to the level of benefits that
are available.
3.2 The social benefits/dis-benefits are
not assessed easily under the present arrangements. Coastal defence
policy will also need to be reviewed against any significant environmental
impacts and any losses that could occur in and around coastal
communities.
3.3 This process has opened up a dialogue
that many local politicians have felt uneasy with. It has however
begun a process which has caused many to reflect upon coast defence
strategies which no longer accept as the norm the status quo for
future protection. This reflection will ultimately inform the
planning process and must be capable of accommodating such advice.
3.4 It is considered that the continuation
of the present policy objectives will, through the various plans,
lead to increased risks of flooding and erosion, particularly
where there is not a clear argument for protection of the coastal
frontage. This policy could lead to planning blight and the inability
to obtain adequate insurance cover to protect assets from loss,
inundation or damage.
3.5 The production of SMP's has focused
attention on a need for a national mechanism to allow payment
of compensation for lost assets, habitats, land and communities
in appropriate cases. Guidance is required on this important issue,
and also on the acceptability of schemes for cliff restoration
where coastal assets and in particular coast protection structures
are considered at risk. These issues are fundamental within the
Borough Council's area where "soft" cliffs predominate.
3.6 Local authorities through their elected
Members, have already had significant input into future policy
when considering the process of SMP's and more specifically strategic
defence options.
3.7 This local and accountable involvement
and understanding is considered paramount in any development of
MAFF policy to ensure sustainable management solutions are prepared
that, where present, protect both rural and urban coastal communities
and are locally acceptable.
3.8 A more balanced system needs to be structured
between economic and environmental factors/impacts.
4. Conclusions
4.1 The existing arrangement for the delivery
of coast and flood protection is generally considered to be adequate.
This is not to say that it may not be improved. However it is
the Council's contention that for the reasons given above, local
authority involvement at the "sharp end" of the service
is a pre-requisite to the future.
4.2 It is the Council's experience that
MAFF have consistently endeavoured to support local authorities
against a background of relatively diminishing resources. The
level of resources available is of concern particularly at a time
when much of the existing coast and flood protection infrastructure
nationally is aged and coming to the end of its useful life.
4.3 The Borough Council would strongly resist
any significant denudation of its powers or responsibilities under
the terms of the Coast Protection Act but welcomes the opportunity
provided by this Committee to highlight its views and aspirations
about the future of flood and coastal defence.
15 April 1998
