Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200 - 219)
TUESDAY 12 MAY 1998
COUNCILLOR DEREK
WHITTAKER, MR
IAN SUMNALL,
MR TERRY
OAKES AND
MR PHIL
SWANN
200. You would say that in this respect at least unitary
status has been an advantage.
(Mr McInnes) Yes, it has and also we have been able
at this time of change and development in terms of the SMPs to
provide informal advice to the statutory planning system, such
as information on policies in relation to flood risk and problems
of coastal instability and so on. We are able to provide informal
support to the statutory planning system to try to address a range
of physical problems we have on the island.
201. One of the themes which is coming through to me as a
newcomer to this area is that it is incredibly complex and byzantine
across the whole of the United Kingdom as to how these issues
are organised. It seems to me that perhaps the Isle of Wight can
point the way in some respects. It is cutting a swathe through
some of the complexities. Derived from your experience are there
any concrete proposals you would offer this Committee and your
sister authorities in East Sussex and around the country, about
how to improve collaborative activities in the coastal zone?
(Mr McInnes) One of the things we have recognised,
being an island and with limited resources, is the particular
advantage of dialogue. About ten years ago we arranged a two-day
conference on the Isle of Wight to discuss problems with the coastline.
This led to the establishment of the first informal coastal group
in the UK, SCOPAC, which is the Standing Conference on Problems
Associated with the Coastline. This covers a 400 kilometre length
of coast from Lyme Regis to Hove, including the Isle of Wight.
The need arose from the recognition that it was essential that
neighbouring authorities should understand what each other was
doing and there should be discussions so that the activities of
one authority are not having a detrimental effect on another.
Over the years SCOPAC has developed not only in terms of sharing
information but actually receiving advice from MAFF and other
agencies and transmitting that, but also in terms of commissioning
research. We have our own research budget, which involves a contribution
from our 27 constituent members and this provides some money for
us to try to address local issues which would be beyond the resources
of each individual member of the group which can actually make
a difference in terms of helping us to understand the particular
problems around the Isle of Wight and along the south coast. In
the context of coastal zone management, we are very pleased to
be involved with the European Life programme project on integrated
management of coastal zones. We are one of 13 study areas in the
EU where we are looking at what lessons can be learned through
our experiences along the south coast in trying to improve coastal
zone management and prevent further deterioration of coastal areas.
We are half way through this study and we will be reporting to
the commission in about one year's time.
202. Is what makes SCOPAC unique the research programme?
Is that one of its really genuinely distinguishing characteristics?
(Mr McInnes) There are two characteristics: one is
the research budget, which has been extremely helpful. Perhaps
if we can offer a donation we can help lever money from other
organisations, perhaps the Crown Estate or MAFF for example, to
encourage them in a particular direction in terms of research.
The other aspect about SCOPAC is that we have a two-tier system
with full conference which involves elected members as well as
officers and an officers' technical working group. We are able
to involve politicians in our discussions, which we find is very
useful in terms of providing additional knowledge for them and
when they get back to their council chambers and debates in their
environment committees and so on they are in a much more informed
position about strategic issues.
203. You mentioned a name then which we imagined would feature
quite largely in our investigation but does not seem to have so
far and that is the Crown Estate. What is the nature of your relationship
with the Crown Estate on the Isle of Wight?
(Mr McInnes) We have quite a lot of dealings with
the Crown Estate because fortunately or unfortunately, depending
on who you are, the waters of the English Channel along the central
south coast of England are one of the richest dredging grounds
around the coastline of the UK. There are many concerns about
the cumulative effects of a whole series of dredging licences
which have been issued over the years or are being issued in future
and the effects of this on adjacent coastlines. One of the reasons
SCOPAC was first established was this very real concern about
dredging. Over the years, really to improve our knowledge and
understanding and management of the coast, we have commissioned
some major studies such as sediment transport pathways, how mobile
the sediment is on the seabed and so on. This is essential if
one wants to plan in terms of coastal defence to have a good understanding
of the coastal processes.
204. Would you think it surprising if we have not had any
evidence from the Crown Estate on coastal issues? This is something
we should probably ask for rather forcefully.
(Mr McInnes) Yes, I think it would be valuable.
205. Just take a practical example in the Solent area which
I know a little bit. When work is done on somewhere like Hurst
Spit on the mainland, for example, you would be fully consulted
about the dredging work and the nature of those works then.
(Mr McInnes) Yes, we would. We have a very close working
relationship with New Forest District Council. We have both been
developing shoreline management plans, one for the Isle of Wight
which is one sub-cell unit and one for the western Solent. We
both sit as observers on each other's steering committees. In
fact New Forest District Council are carrying out a ten-year monitoring
programme of the north west coast of the island following the
completion of their Hurst Spit scheme at their expense.
206. I am intrigued by the rather franglais organisation,
Environment and Coastal Working Group of Arc Manche. This is obviously
a compromise thrashed out in some committee somewhere. Can you
tell us a little more about this? In your written evidence there
is reference to it but what is its value? It covers quite a large
geographical area.
(Mr McInnes) It does. Arc Manche was established in
early 1996 because of the recognition of the need to look at issues
such as coastal processes, aggregate dredging, concerns about
pollution, safety at sea and so on, on a much more strategic basis.
We are finding, if I may just use dredging as an illustration,
that there might be an application for a dredging licence off
the Dorset coast and information might be circulated to adjacent
authorities when in fact the implications could be far more serious
perhaps for the Sussex coast or further along. Equally there are
other issues which could affect the French side more than the
English side. We recognise that a great deal of excellent research
was being done by various universities and scientific institutions
with similar problems on both sides of the Channel. To avoid duplication
we thought it would be excellent to learn what each other was
doing and also through particular European funding programmes
such as INTERREG, which deals with cross border regulation, we
could perhaps seek European funding to try to address some of
the strategic issues. It does give us a chance to look at the
whole of the south coast of England on a very strategic basis
and involve the local authorities in there.
207. And the north coast of France.
(Mr McInnes) Yes; of course.
208. May I bring East Sussex in briefly because you mentioned
the magic name. Mr McInnes, you are painting a very rosy picture
of the way cooperation works on the south coast which I am sure
the Committee would be very encouraged by. Mr Ankers, you are
Assistant Director of Development for East Sussex County Council
and your colleague Mr Howes is Deputy County Treasurer. I wonder
whether either of you would like to comment on the work of Arc
Manche. Is it something you are as enthusiastic about?
(Mr Ankers) We find it a difficult network to work
with and I am full of admiration for the effort which Mr McInnes
and some of his other colleagues have put into it. Certainly at
East Sussex we are aware of the potential benefits that network
can provide and we are members of that network. What we do find,
as the pressures build up on staff time and budgets and get increasingly
tight, is that we have to get more and more selective about where
we actually deploy ourselves. Where it is always difficult to
get joint projects going even on the English side of the Channel
between a whole range of county and district councils because
of the necessary bureaucracy you have to set up to achieve it,
it gets a little bit more complicated when you are dealing with
another nation as well. We have not been as active as I would
wish. I tend to try to keep tabs on papers which come out from
Mr McInnes and some of his colleagues. The one area where our
own authority has tried to take a more active role in Arc Manche
has been on the rather wider sphere of spatial planning, trying
to put together a bid under what is called the INTERREG 2C programme.
In some of the very real and very practical environmental issues
we have not been as active as we would wish. We have tried to
focus on some other definable, tangible funding programmes and
INTERREG is one which we have plugged into. It is a case of trying
to work out where best to deploy yourself.
209. You see value in Arc Manche but you just do not feel
you can extract it easily as a council.
(Mr Ankers) Yes; that is it.
Mr Collins
210. Back to you, Mr McInnes, if I may. You have touched
on the issue of coastal cells. Could you tell us a little about
how the system helps the council reconcile the local regional
and national imperatives as far as coastal management is concerned?
(Mr McInnes) We believe and we have believed for many
years that an understanding of coastal processes is absolutely
vital in terms of developing sustainable coastal defence policies.
It is recognised round the coastline of the UK and indeed in Europe,
that some quite serious mistakes have been made in the past and
lessons have been learnt from these. The establishment of the
coastal groups has allowed local authorities to work together
and the recognition and research which has been undertaken in
terms of coastal processes has reinforced the message that coastal
processes are not governed by administrative boundaries and it
is essential for local authorities to talk to one another. The
research commissioned by MAFF in terms of dividing the coastline
of England and Wales up into segments, cells and sub-cells has
been very helpful in strengthening this message and bringing to
everyone's notice the essential need to collaborate more closely
along particular strategic lengths of coastline. If I may take
the central south coast of England for example, the SCOPAC coastline,
we have there a sub-division of the littoral cells into seven
sub-cells and the shoreline management plans are being prepared
on this basis. It is also very important that one does not just
look at a shoreline management plan for a particular sub-cell
in isolation because when you draw the line at the point between
two sub-cell boundaries there are obviously issues and there is
a grey area across the boundary. It is important to have dialogue
with your adjacent coastal team which is developing the adjacent
shoreline management plan but also we think there is a need to
look strategically. We are commissioning some research at the
moment, trying to draw conclusions from the seven shoreline management
plans which have been produced for the SCOPAC coastline to see
what issues are arising from that and what the priorities should
be in terms of research. If there are issues of local interest,
they can perhaps be best dealt with by the individual authorities,
but MAFF would in favour, and it certainly would be of benefit
to the coastal groups, if we could draw conclusions on a more
strategic basis and then possibly we can get support from one
of the government funding bodies or the European Commission to
try to address some very significant problem which can help us
with our knowledge.
211. May I broaden the supplementary to all our witnesses?
Are you satisfied with the ways in which the boundaries of these
coastal cells have been drawn up? Are they perfectly appropriate
for all planning and environmental purposes or is it the case
as it has been put to us that there is a rather convenient fit
between the local authority boundaries and the coastal cell boundaries
in some areas which may have an administrative significance but
not particularly a physical one?
(Mr Ankers) The boundaries which you use for the different
processes tend to reflect the particular area of work you are
looking at. The shoreline management plan cell boundaries and
sub-cell boundaries in our area do tend to be forelands. In East
Sussex we have Selsey to Beachy Head and then we have part of
Beachy Head to South Foreland. In terms of the physical processes,
which is really what the shoreline management plans are about,
those make sense. As far as our engineers are able to establish,
those are reasonable areas within which to study those processes.
You can always say something is going on beyond that but at least
they establish a workable boundary. Where we look at the wider
kinds of planning exercise, like counties drawing up county strategies
or coastal management plans, you do find different boundaries
coming into play, largely for administrative and planning authority
reasons. In East Sussex we produced our own county strategy while
well aware there were certain issues which would leak across the
sides of that. We have also done work on some more detailed coastal
management plans which do not reflect the specific shoreline management
plan boundaries but are identifiable in terms of what is happening
on the land. If we have particular areas of undeveloped coast
and particular characteristics like our heritage coast or our
Rye Bay area, we have tended to draw up very detailed coastal
management plans for those with different boundaries again from
the shoreline management ones. We have just accepted that that
is the way things are.
212. Could I also put it to you that the concept of coastal
cells, is largely, not entirely, based on managing the sand and
there are some parts of our coastline where mud is rather more
prevalent than sand? Is that a problem? Is that something which
needs to be taken into account?
(Mr McInnes) I am not actually aware of any cases
where the boundaries of cells or sub-cells have been jigged to
fit in with administrative boundaries. The work has been based
on scientific research largely undertaken by H R Wallingford.
It has not been fixed to make it convenient in terms of local
authority boundary. There are many very good examples of where
strategies are being developed, for example for Lyme Bay, for
the Solent, which coincide with natural features. The normal arrangement
for subdivision of these cells, it may be a headland for example,
but it could also be an estuary, is where you have breaks in the
sediment system, where the processes of erosion, sediment transport
and deposition are relatively self-contained. Some of these are
more difficult to determine than others but generally speaking
it is a very sound way of dividing up the coastline based on natural
processes.
(Mr Ankers) I am not aware of it being an issue in
that sense in our area. Whether it is in other parts of the country,
I do not know, but we have always accepted that those were reasonable
boundaries to study the natural processes.
213. I am told that the Hydrological Research Centre state
categorically that sub-cells fit administrative boundaries. Do
you deny that?
(Mr McInnes) I am not aware of that.
(Mr Ankers) They do not seem to work like that in
East Sussex.
(Mr McInnes) Certainly not in the area I am concerned
with.
Chairman
214. Before I hand the baton over to Mr Hurst to pursue East
Sussex in a little more detail than we have so far, may I just
ask you one thing, Mr McInnes? I am a regular visitor to the island
and I know its coast is more than usually prone to slippage and
loss, so your job is obviously an important one. How do you view
the recent legal decision about Holbeck Hall in Scarborough where
it was established that one local authority was legally responsible
for the land slip? You have a lot of properties close to the coastline
on the Isle of Wight. Does this mean you are now going to have
to defend all property from every possible eventuality?
(Mr McInnes) We are extremely concerned about the
legal implications arising from Holbeck Hall because as the local
authority we own substantial amounts of coastal land. As you are
probably aware, the Victorians chose to develop very densely around
the coastline of the Isle of Wight, particularly on the eastern
side and we have a population of about 130,000 of which something
like 65 per cent live within 2 kilometres of the coast. In terms
of the effect of this on extending coastal defences, this is not
the case because generally speaking on the Isle of Wight there
is a fairly clear definition between the developed and the undeveloped
coast. Through our shoreline management plan and the development
of strategies we clearly recognise that there are large parts
of the coastline and no action. We have no desire to defend them
both from an aesthetic point of view and also because they contribute
through the natural erosion processes to the beaches, not just
on the Isle of Wight but further along the coast. We have recently
carried out research looking at the inputs to the sediment system
from eroding cliffs and so on. This helps us determine our priorities
for coastal defence. There are very strong environmental reasons
why large parts of our coastline would not be defended but we
do need to be very much aware of the need to maintain the defences
where we have sound economic reasons in the more developed parts.
There are problems with land slip. The south coast of the Isle
of Wight is the largest urban landslide complex in north western
Europe. We have 12,000 people living on the landslip system and
this presents real problems for us, both in terms of the need
to maintain and upgrade coastal defences because of concerns about
global warming, sea level rise and more storm events and so on,
but also in terms of trying to protect life and property for those
people living in vulnerable areas. It is a very important point
and we are liaising with Scarborough Borough Council and awaiting
the results of an appeal with interest.
Mr Hurst
215. You were told I am pursuing East Sussex. It is not a
personal vendetta of any kind, merely that the Chairman wishes
me to put certain questions to you. You tell us in your evidence
that quite a large area of land in East Sussex is in fact below
the 4.5 metre level and therefore liable to potential flooding.
Can you tell us what provision the county council have made for
flood warnings?
(Mr Ankers) We rely in the first instance on the Environment
Agency. They take the lead in taking lead responsibility for flood
warnings. Our emergency planning officer—we employ a small
team—attends liaison meetings with the Environment Agency
staff regularly to see how those systems can be beefed up and
improved. We do not maintain any separate systems for being notified
other than what the EA give us. We use that information as you
would expect to keep an eye on the highway infrastructure for
which we are statutorily responsible and which does come very
close to the coast and to low-lying land at flood risk. We also
would alert any practical and operational staff, including people
like our countryside management staff whom we tend to pull out
in the case of emergencies. We are often in discussion with the
EA about how those systems can be improved. My understanding—and
this is slightly at one arm's remove through the emergency planning
officer—is that the systems tend at the moment to be a little
bit rough and ready, based largely on simple contours and anything
below a certain contour level being at risk. What is required
is rather more sophisticated modelling which would take resources
to do. We could then get more accurate predictions, relying on
what the capacity of the particular area of land is to discharge
that water, how it is actually configured in terms of rivers and
sinks and so on and what the likely surge impact of water coming
in is.
216. We heard from the Environment Agency two weeks ago,
particularly with reference to the flooding in the town of Northampton.
Whilst I accept it is the responsibility of the Environment Agency
to deal with flood warnings, it is your people and your property
which will actually be flooded. We had concerns about the mechanism
for notifying those warnings. What actual mechanisms exist in
the county of East Sussex to notify people that a flood is imminent?
(Mr Ankers) I could not answer in any more detail
than I have done. The county council, as far as I am aware, does
not carry out public warning systems. I would need to take further
advice on that and get back to you to make comments.
217. Are you aware of your own knowledge, and perhaps if
you are not you could let us have a note in due course, of the
actual mechanisms by which the public are warned of the imminent
flood?
(Mr Ankers) I would need to look into that and send
you a further note.
218. Would I be right that that information would be to hand
for the county council, but I fully understand you do not have
it?
(Mr Ankers) Yes, it would be the emergency planning
officer who would supply the note.
219. I should really like to know about the mechanisms, the
number of people who are potentially affected within the areas
as occupiers of property and estimates which may have been made
about the time it takes between the warning being received by
the county and the notification to the occupier of property. We
certainly had concerns following the evidence we had two weeks
ago about other parts of the country. You mention also in your
helpful evidence that there is a need for a comprehensive and
integrated approach to coastal protection, planning and management.
Could you say very briefly what you mean by that and whether the
current policy is meeting that standard?
(Mr Ankers) There has been a lot of improvement during
the last decade. A lot of us tend to hark back to the Environment
Committee's work, looking at coastal issues and the planning policy
guidance note 20 which followed it, which was perhaps the first
clear structured approach at central government. That spawned
a lot of the coordinated activity which you have probably been
hearing about from the local authorities and others. You have
no doubt been hearing about the coordinated action over shoreline
management plans, basically an engineer-led approach to handling
the actual processes and how to work out the best means of physical
defence of the coast. We have also at different levels in different
authorities been producing rather wider coastal strategies, as
we have in East Sussex, and our evidence was based largely on
that document which was published a couple of years ago. We have
ensured that a lot of the work which was done there has now fed
in in turn to the review of the county structure plan which is
currently going through its examination in public. That has much
clearer policies now than it used to on the need to keep development
away from undeveloped coasts wherever practical, etcetera, avoiding
development in areas at flood risk. We are also finding that those
are going through into the district local plans as well. For example,
Lewes district local plan which has also just been through its
public inquiry has some very specific policies about development
not taking place near cliff edges and development not taking place
where it would automatically require expensive coastal protection
works or flood defence works. Those things are finding their way
through into the formal planning systems. We have not done one
or two of the coordinating things which I might have hoped from
two or three years ago. We moved to set up a countywide coastal
forum, as a number of authorities did, to try to bring together
most of the key players so we could have a higher degree of coordination
than we have hitherto. That has not happened and that is a disappointment
and reflected a number of things. The local authorities and the
others with the statutory powers, the district councils, borough
councils, government agencies, tended not to see the value for
that because they said they were already busy and they knew what
their functions were and they had to do these things. Some of
the agencies who wanted to input to that debate, often the voluntary
sector groups or advisory bodies like English Nature and the archeology
bodies, felt it would have been very useful. We did not get a
lot of support for it and then we ran into the problem of staffing
resources and we were never able to set that up.
|
