This news item is over 3 months old and has been archived.
Sea defence costs to be explored further
The cost implications of two sea
defence options to protect the coastline in Scarborough’s South Bay
will be presented to the borough council’s Cabinet in the New
Year.
It follows a meeting at which senior
councillors fully endorsed officers’ recommendations to improve the
sea defences around the Spa and carry out cliff-stabilisation works
in the South Bay, where there is already dramatic evidence of
ground movement.
Cabinet decided that officers’ preferred
option of a moderate height wave wall with rock revetment, along
with the option of a concrete stepped revetment should be
investigated further. Both options would help protect public assets
such as the Spa.
Once the cost implications of the two
options have been evaluated, a further report will be submitted to
Cabinet in February when councillors will decide which one they
want to see put forward in a business case to attract Environment
Agency funding.
Cllr Andrew Backhouse, Scarborough Borough
Council Cabinet portfolio holder for coastal and flood defences,
said: “The decision to endorse the need to improve the sea defences
in front of the Spa and address the cliff instability issues behind
the Spa is pleasing.
“We will now work on developing the costs
of the proposed options to allow an informed decision on which
option to take forward. Obviously there are pros and cons of both
rock armour and the concrete stepped revetment.
“Rock armour is the cheaper option, while
the stepped revetment has maintenance issues and a larger footprint
on the beach – we need to balance the aesthetics of both schemes
against the costs and ongoing liabilities for the council. The next
report to Cabinet will explore these issues.
“I want to reiterate that doing nothing is
not an option. Climate change models show rising sea levels and
greater wave overtopping which will increase the risk of flooding
to the Spa and other infrastructure in that area. That would not
just be damaging to the buildings themselves, but also to the Spa
as a business asset and the town’s economy as a whole.
“Therefore, although I appreciate both
proposals will have an impact on the visual aesthetic of the Spa
from the seafront and will take up space on the beach, I believe it
is essential to ensure the Spa site remains a viable venue for
hosting events to attract tourists, as well as providing
entertainment all year round for residents.”
Council officers say there is already
“significant wave action” at The Spa, with regular overtopping far
in excess of levels considered safe for unrestricted public
areas.
The current sea wall – which also acts as a
retaining wall for the area behind it and prevents erosion to the
toe of the inland cliff – is considered to be reaching the end of
its useful life, with the oldest remaining sections in the wall
built in the 1840s and showing dramatic signs of wear.
Further notes ...
Six options considered by Cabinet for the sea defences (options
in yellow are the two which are being explored further) were:
Option 1 Do Nothing – No
further work will be undertaken on the Spa seawall. This would lead
to deterioration of the defences over time, resulting in eventual
failure.
Option 2 Do Minimum -
Continue the current management regime. This includes the provision
of repairs and maintenance to coastal defences including
repointing, infilling of breaches and rebuilding of failed sections
of defences to extend their effective life and reduce chance of
failure. However this would not address the risks created by
wave overtopping or over steepened slopes, nor would it create
confidence for future investment in the town's tourism
infrastructure. The council’s aspirations for developing The Spa
need to be complemented by major investment in its sea
defences.
Option 3 Improve. Rock revetment
with a high wave wall – Improve the defences by
constructing a rock revetment in front of the existing sea wall. A
new wave wall would be constructed, with a height of 1.4m above
walkway level.
Option 4 Improve. Rock revetment with a
medium height wave wall - Improve the defences by
constructing a rock revetment in front of the existing sea wall. A
new wave wall would be constructed, with a height of 1.1m above
walkway level.
Option 5 Improve. Rock revetment
with a low height wave wall - Improve the defences by
constructing a rock revetment in front of the existing sea wall. A
new wave wall would be constructed, with a height of 0.6m above
walkway level. The wall would be topped by a handrail to increase
the barrier to the minimum requirement of 1.1m (Building
Regulations).
Option 6 Improve. Concrete stepped
revetment with a wave wall 1.4m in height - Improve
the defences by constructing a concrete stepped revetment in front
of the existing sea wall, with a 1.4m wave wall at the crest of the
revetment.
Cabinet agreed that option C3 for cliff
stablisation works should be pursued which is “to provide
additional cliff stability via a piled array, horizontal drainage
and walls/soil nailing as the basis for further study”.