june 2018 newsletter - environment agency...lincolnshire county council national farmers union...

Option selection to public consultation

Stakeholder workshops took place in 2016/17 where you helped us reduce a

long list of flood risk management options to six.

In February/March this year, we took these options to a public consultation.

We gave you and the public the chance to give your views online, by post or

at one of our six drop-in events that were held along the coast.

The following is a report to summarise the responses to the consultation questions.

Overview

The Environment Agency is reviewing how it manages coastal flood risk between

Saltfleet and Gibraltar Point over the next 100 years.

Hard and soft sea defences, along with annual sand nourishment provide a wide defence between

Saltfleet and Gibraltar Point. This helps manage the flood risk to around 20,000 residential homes; 1,700

businesses; 24,500 static caravans; 35,000 hectares of farmland and a bustling tourist industry.

Latest climate change guidance indicates that although beach nourishment is an effective method of

managing flood risk, it may not be enough in the future. We have been working in partnership to deliver a

strategy that will manage the risk of coastal flooding for the next 100 years.

Consultation questions – Summary of responses

1. Have you attended a consultation event?

71%

29%

0%

Yes No Not answered

0 5 10 15 20

Anderby

Sutton on Sea

Chapel

Embassy

Gibraltar Point

Attended/Post

Post

Saltfleet

Scrutiny Meeting

Internal (DEFRA)

% Audience

Event attendance/postal entries

June 2018 Newsletter

2. We would like to keep you informed of further developments regarding this strategy review.

Please choose how you would like to receive this information.

3. Are you responding as an individual?

4. Do you live in the strategy area?

94%

6%

Yes No

Organisations within 6% represented:

Caravan Park

Skegness Coastal Access for All

Golf Club

Time and Tide Bell

Sailing Club

Environment Agency

East Lindsey District Council

Historic England

Lincolnshire County Council

National Farmers Union

National Grid – Viking Link

North Kesteven District Council

Local parish/town council

Residents Association

80%

16%

4%

Yes No Not answered

Other interest in area:

5 x Caravan site owners

8 x councillors

1 x Family live in area

11 x general interest

6 x holiday home

2 x Run leisure businesses in

area

2 x Sail in area

12 x visit area regularly

19 x work in the area

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Address

Email

Not answered

%

5. What is your opinion on Option 1 – Sand nourishment to manage flood risk on the

Lincolnshire coast

6. What is your opinion on Option 2 – The introduction of coarser sand, shingle or pebbles along

the coast to help manage coastal flood risk?

3% 8%

21%

25%

37%

6%

OPTION 2

Strongly like Like

Neutral Dislike

Strongly dislike Not answered

30%

26%

23%

8%

7%6%

OPTION 1

Strongly like Like

Neutral Dislike


Negative Comments Archaeological concerns

Beach amenity – negative

Cost

Appearance

Environmental impacts

Hard to walk on

Impact on residents

Noisy

Still moveable in surges

Impact on tourism

Bringing it to site

Once in place – hard to

remove

Positive Comments Coastal flora/fauna

benefits

Good in select locations

Good protection

Habitat creation

Less movement

Like pebbled beaches

Negative Comments Not likely to be

sustainable over 100

years

Sand moves around too

much

Costs too much

Concern for offshore

sand locations

Archaeological concerns

Annual disruption

Positive Comments Provides a natural looking

defence

Maintains the current

habitat

Open beach

Good for local

economy/tourism

We know it works

Good for families

Beach amenity – positive

Aesthetics – looks good

7. What is your opinion on Option3 – The introduction of rock groynes (plus sand nourishment)

along the coast to help manage coastal flood risk?

8. What is your opinion on Option 4 – The introduction of rock groynes and fishtails, plus sand nourishment,

along the coast to help manage coastal flood risk?

22%

37%

25%

7%

4% 5%

OPTION 3

Strongly like Like

Neutral Dislike


42%

30%

15%

4%5% 4%

OPTION 4

Strongly like Like

Neutral Dislike


Negative Comments Access for seawall

works?

Archaeological

concerns

Concerns regarding

public safety

Environmental

impacts

Expensive/initial

investment

Not good for leisure

Unattractive

Bad for

landscape/seascape

Positive Comments Opportunity for additional

features

Adds diversity/interest

Can be modified

Cheaper in the long run

Creates safe enclosed and

private areas

Encourages marine life

Good compromise

Good for tourism

Long lasting/more permanent

solution

Prevents erosion/sand

movement

Proven in other areas


features

Adds character

Attractive

Benefits to coastal flora/fauna

Can be modified

Cheaper in the long run/value

for money

Adds diversity/interest/focal

points

Economic/tourism benefits

Encourage fishing

Good compromise

Good for shelter/privacy


solution

Proven in other areas

Reduces sand movement

Negative Comments Access for seawall

works?

Bad for

landscape/seascape

May impact tourism

Concerns re public

safety


Expensive/initial

investment


Unattractive

9. What is your opinion on Option 5 – The introduction of rock groynes and fishtails with different

volumes of sand?

10. What is your opinion on Option 6 – The introduction of rock groynes and fishtails with different

frequencies of sand?

26%

26%25%

9%

6%8%

OPTION 5

Strongly like Like

Neutral Dislike


25%

23%28%

10%

7%7%

OPTION 6

Strongly like Like

Neutral Dislike



features

Adds character

Attractive


Can be modified


for money


points


Good compromise


Less maintenance


solution

Retains sandy beach


Negative Comments Access concerns


Access for seawall works?

Bad for

landscape/seascape

Concerns regarding public

safety

Could be influenced by

funding pressures


Expensive/initial investment


Unattractive

Varying protection -

negative


features

Adds character

Attractive



for money


points

Creates bays


Good compromise


Less maintenance


solution

Retains sandy beach


Negative Comments Access concerns


Access for seawall works?

Bad for

landscape/seascape

Concerns regarding public

safety

Could be influenced by

funding pressures


Expensive/initial investment


Unattractive

Varying protection -

negative

11. With additional investment from other sources (not flood defence grant in aid) there may be

opportunities to further enhance the coastline as a result. What additional features would you

like to see on the coast if funding were available?

273 suggested ideas around additionality

12. What can you tell us about your experience of this consultation?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Not applicable Not answered

Customer service overview

Information provided Helpfulness of staff Online consultation tool Overall consultation experience

05

101520253035

Additionality suggestions

*Other suggestions: Ban tractors/trawlers, business on groyne (café), car parks, dedicated ‘events’ beach, ferry rides to Hunstanton,

higher sea wall, make wind farm a marine reserve area, new flood plains, observatories, offshore airport, out of season attractions,

power plants, public toilets, realignment of frontage, remove RAF range, tidal power/lagoons.

%

%

13. Other comments:

Mentioned the need to use different options depending on area

Avoid works in summer holidays

Can’t predict the future

Complaint re cars on the defences

Concerns re access along the beach

Concerns regarding local fishing

Concerns regarding safety

Concerns regarding wildlife

Crown Estates – sand should be free!

We should adopt different approach depending

on the area

Documents were informative

I’d like to become an emergency volunteer

Happy about the environmental considerations

Information explained well

Good displays!

Great staff!

Government should increase funding

Greater effort to be made by the Government

I’d be happy to volunteer at events

Very helpful!

I liked the information on history

Suggestions for ways that we can improve:

Additional consultation points along the

stretch

Some venues a bit too small

Carbon footprint included for each

option

Consultation when ‘Lincshore’ in progress

– maximise interest

Didn’t know about the drop-ins

Further and continued community

communication

More info on cost/budget

Option to save responses on site (to print)

Postal campaign to whole stretch

Too much consultation not enough doing

Video footage

Reinstall sirens on the coast

Reinstall wooden groynes

Insufficient info to make an informed choice

Very interesting

We should adopt managed realignment

More info on cost/budget

More input should be made by businesses

More space on paper form for responses

Need better advertising to elderly

Need to improve protection to enable further

development of coast

Need to see SEA before commenting

Plant more marram grass

Positive overall

Request an event in Mablethorpe

Sand blowing off the beach past defences is major

problem

Suggest a presentation

Tax local businesses to help fund

Tide measuring pole

Viking Link should be considered in SEA

14. Your responses will be contained in the consultation report which will be published in the final

strategy later this year. Please confirm that you are happy to have your comments published in

this report.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Yes

No

Not answered

%

To Summarise…

What’s next?

Your views, along with our own analysis, have helped us to shape the flood risk options.

These options now form part of the draft strategy document to help manage flood risk in the

area for the next 100 years.

We will be publishing the draft strategy document in September this year and we want to know

what you think.

To find out more visit:

https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/flood-and-coastal-risk-management/sgp

Check back soon to find out more details of future drop-in events or where you can view a

copy of the draft strategy.

Alternatively you can contact us:

[email protected]

External: 020 84749987

This table was taken from the

stakeholder responses indicating

the preferences around the six

options.

The responses around the six

options have been summarised in

this chart (right). This indicates the

preferred options from the public

consultation

https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/flood-and-coastal-risk-management/sgp

mailto:[email protected]