(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)
(Ms M Gerrard who had registered to speak on this item in accordance with the City Council’s agreed procedure and Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.7, spoke as a representative member of Cockersands Forum).
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Policy to consider the adoption of the revised Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2). A decision on this item had been deferred from the Cabinet meeting held on 5 October 2010 to enable Members to undertake a site visit to Cockerham and Sunderland Point (Minute 50 refers).
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
Option 1
Members are asked to formally adopt the revised shoreline management plan as a risk management tool for the sustainable management of our coastline. Whilst there is concern in some communities about the policies being adopted the best available solution has been obtained for these areas within the national parameters laid down by the government. The SMP2 is the major risk management tool that is being used by central government to allocate priorities for funding of coastal defence works. Lancaster City Council has in the past relied heavily on access to government grants to protect itself from major coastal flooding. Whilst a great deal of work has already been completed which has reduced this risk there is still a need for further work to maintain and enhance the existing defences which will maintain the level of protection recently achieved. A programme of works to replace the existing wave reflection wall, built in the early eighties, which whilst currently serviceable has suffered some deterioration is programmed over the next few years subject to final approvals. Access to such funds is likely to be at risk if this strategic management tool is not adopted by Lancaster City Council. In those areas of controversy where the prospect of managed retreat could threaten the current status quo there is a commitment to hold the line for now and review the approach before the next revision of the plan. For this reason support is recommended at this time.
Option 2
Members may choose not to adopt the plan. Non adoption will put at risk access to funds for any coastal or flooding related grants. Lancaster City Council currently has allocations in its capital programme which are still subject to final grant approval which may be at risk if non adoption is chosen. This Council can only operate as the local responsible body for Coastal defences if it is adequately funded by the Environment agency and working in partnership with the North West Coastal Group. Failure to adopt the plan could prejudice this.
Officer Preferred Option (and comments)
The officer’s recommendation is option 1 as this is an important aid to the future management of our coastline and will be an important factor in the determination of financial support that the Council will receive from central government on coastal defence and flooding issues.
Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Robinson:-
“(1) To adopt the Shoreline Management Plan 2.
(2) That Cabinet would like to see localised protection from erosion (eg rock armour) for the end of Sunderland Point.
(3) That Cabinet notes the environmental and economic benefits of land in the Cockersands area; and the historical importance of the former Cockersands Abbey.
(4) That Cabinet requests details of further studies at Cockersands on flood defences are made available to the City Council and local residents and that both these groups are involved in discussions about these studies.
(5) That any conclusions of new studies at Cockersands are considered by the City Council.
(6) That during the hold the line period of the next 20 years, the embankment is maintained by the Environment Agency (including tunnel erosion).”
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved unanimously:
(1) To adopt the Shoreline Management Plan 2
(2) That Cabinet would like to see localised protection from erosion (eg rock armour) for the end of Sunderland Point.
(3) That Cabinet notes the environmental and economic benefits of land in the Cockersands area; and the historical importance of the former Cockersands Abbey.
(4) That Cabinet requests details of further studies at Cockersands on flood defences are made available to the City Council and local residents and that both these groups are involved in discussions about these studies.
(5) That any conclusions of new studies at Cockersands are considered by the City Council.
(6) That during the hold the line period of the next 20 years, the embankment is maintained by the Environment Agency (including tunnel erosion).
Officer responsible for effecting the decision:
Head of Regeneration and Policy.
Reasons for making the decision:
The Shoreline Management Plan will be an important risk management aid to the future management of the coastline in the district and an important factor in the determination of financial support that the Council will receive from central government on coastal defence and flooding issues.