PRESENT
Councillor B Collins - (Deputy Leader, Great Yarmouth Borough Council);
Mr M Barrow - (Director of Environmental and Economic Policy, GYBC),
Mr M Glennerster - (Halcrow Consultant),
Mr B Harris - (Engineering and Building Manager, GYB Services),
Mr J Hemsworth - (Head of Environment and Health, GYBC),

1. Councillor B Collins opened the meeting by explaining why it had been called. He referred to the previous public meeting held at Gorleston Library on the 29 September 2004 and the subsequent meeting at the Town Hall on 24 January 2005.

2. Mark Barrow referred to the notes of the meeting with local residents which had been sent out with the letter advising residents of this meeting. A further copy had been placed on the seats provided for the residents together with a copy of a letter submitted by Peter Johnson. Mark Barrow asked those who had been at the meeting on the 24 January whether they had anything they wished to contribute prior to the following presentation. There were no further comments.

3. Mark Barrow said there were a range of issues to be considered including current consultation on the Kelling-Lowestoft Ness proposed Shoreline Management Plan. This reinforced the importance of taking account of the effect of decisions on neighbouring areas. He referred to a Parliamentary question raised by Norman Lamb MP about issues affecting the North Norfolk Coastline. He said that following the meeting with residents on the 24 January 2005 new proposals would be presented.

4. Mark Glennester of Halcrow made a presentation which he said took into account the points raised at the resident's meeting. He said the new proposal included seawall repairs and refurbishment during the first year together with a 5 year beach monitoring programme and data review. The types of repair included "top crete" - (a surface/reinforced steel sprayed concrete process) and/or new promenade front walling.

The five year monitoring programme would take into account monitoring agreed with East Ports (the Outer Harbour Development Company) and the Environment Agency. On the ground technique would include visual and pictorial recording, laser scanning and traditional surveying methods.

Profiles would be evaluated at 100 metre centres along the beach and the information would be fed into a 3D profiling model.

In conclusion the proposal was to repair the promenade sea wall and carry out beach sand monitoring with a view of reviewing the latter in 2011.

5. Mark Barrow referred back to the previous meetings held on the 29 September 2004 and 24 January 2005. He referred to the reefs and to the predictions relating to increased Sea Levels resulting from "Climate Changes" He went over the key points of the Halcrow presentation and referred to a request for the proposed new scheme to DEFRA. A figure of £1-2 million for the new scheme for seawall repairs was quoted.

He said it was recognised that there was a need to continue sharing information on the beach and sand movement.

7C The Council is presently re-populating its website and information could be included. The Council had recently taken back control of its website from an external supplier and it was in a development stage - the above point by the questioner was well made.

8C The plan at present is to carry out detailed profiling on at least four occasions per year.

9C The questioner was invited to assist in the design of the survey - the questioner agreed.

10C A point that will be taken into account when designing the monitoring programme.

11C The sea wall was last surveyed in detail for scheme design purposes in 2000/01. An exact costing for a current scheme was not known at present. The proposals had been outlined in the presentation.

12C Reference was made to some photographs noted in an old local guide.

13C The effect would be monitored using information from the Environment Agency Coastal Surveys. The previous proposals were based on consultants modelling.

14C This would depend upon the reason.

15C Available from the Environment Agency or on the Environment Agency's web-site.

16C No.

17C To retain sand, rocks should be placed along the foot of the promenade sea wall - at the Southern end of the wall sand was building up.

18C Such work would have been premature with a scheme for substantial repairs pending a decision for Government funding.

19C As far as is possible (The Council has a policy to oppose plans for Offshore Aggregate dredging on the grounds there is a lack of validated information to support or otherwise the case that coastal damage is caused or not).

20C The harbour wall ("Cosie") has a detrimental effect on Gorleston beach. Protection of the coast should rely on an outer bank not the seawall.

21C The Outer Harbour will result in sand loss from Gorleston Beach. There is insufficient guarantee from the developers of the Outer Harbour - East Coast Port - in relation to compensation especially in the case of bankruptcy.

22C The sand movement on Gorleston Beach is onshore - offshore not a South ward drift.

23C The Council is supporting the outer harbour on economic and employment grounds and they are taking all the reasonable steps they can to protect Gorleston Beach.

24C There is no reason to support the view of sand loss. Breydon had previously flowed to the sea in a wide estuary which had continuously silted up. There is no evidence to support the view that an intervention to deal with sand loss will be needed.

25C The eccentricities and complexities of the DEFRA bid process was explained as was the manner by which bids are assessed.

26C The proposal to "patch up the sea wall with beach monitoring is not a persuadable argument - There is agreement with the principal but not any proposal for a "patch and mend" solution.

27C The proposal is gambling with property.

28C No.

29C The monitoring scheme has not yet been designed.

30C European and Government money comes to the Borough with strict controls relating as to how and where it can be spent. It is frustrating for Council Members and Officers as well as members that flexibility is not possible however inward investment to the Borough must be welcomed.

31C Why not place concrete blocks on the beach to protect the coast.

32C The scheme is inappropriate and the objection to it will not be removed. Any objection not resolved means the scheme cannot progress.

33 Mark Barrow went over the reason for the public meeting and asked for a show of hands to give an informal indication of support for the principle of the proposal to carry out repairs to the sea wall together with a five year beach monitoring programme.

34 The number of raised hands appeared significantly higher than those not raised indicating a consensus of support in principle.

35 The previous residents who had been involved in the meeting on the 24 January 2005 agreed they would be prepared to assist the process further.

36 Councillor Bert Collins thanked the residents for attending the meeting.

37 The meeting closed at 8.50pm