GORLESTON COASTAL PROTECTION MEETING

PRESENT:
Councillor B Collins (Deputy Leader GYBC) (in the Chair)
Mr M Barrow (Corporate Director - Economy and Environment, GYBC)
Mr J Hemsworth (Head of Environment and Health GYBC)
Mr B Harris (Engineering and Building Manager GYB Services)
Mr B Hamer and Mr M Glennerster (Halcrow Group Limited)
Mr R Hodds (Member Services Manager GYBC)

Gorleston Residents: Mr T Watson, Mr N Ward, Mr J Campbell, Mr P Johnson, Mr A Cunningham, Mr R J Docwra and Mrs J Docwra also attended.

Following the Public Meeting held on the 29 September 2004 at Gorleston Library to discuss the proposed Gorleston Coastal Protection Scheme, representatives from the Borough Council and from the Council's consultants, Messrs Halcrow Group Limited, met with a number of residents from Gorleston to discuss in further detail issues relating to Gorleston Coast Protection.

Mr M Barrow reminded the representatives present that the Borough Council had not at this stage made any firm decisions with regard to the final Gorleston Coast Protection Scheme which would be submitted to the Government. He assured the representatives that the Borough Council was not driven by the Government funding.

The Borough Council was looking to provide a scheme to meet the necessary requirements for protecting the coastline. Any proposals submitted to Government had, however, to comply with the conditions of application if there was to be any chance of success.

At this stage, the Chairman opened the meeting to the residents of Gorleston for their comments as follows:-

• Mr A Cunningham
• Mr P Johnson
• Mr J Campbell
• Mr N Ward
• Mr T Watson
• Mr R J Docwra
• Mr M Barrow
• Mr B Hamer
• Views on proposed course of action
• Additional points
• Closing Statement
• Addendum

• In his view there is no evidence in respect of the beach in the study area that there will be the annual attrition rate of sand as predicted.
• Some erosion had occurred in the area of the beach near to the Gorleston Golf Club.
• Mr Cunningham referred to a CD of Historic Great Yarmouth which included historical footage with regard to the area of the Gorleston beach.
• In Mr Cunningham's opinion, it would not be necessary for the proposed reef solution to be pursued and that in fact he was challenging the legitimacy of the evidence provided by the Council's consultants.
• Reference was made for the need for regular beach profiling to take place and the need for a more logical solution to be found to strengthen the sea wall.

• The need to establish the parameters first and then undertake the necessary studies. (The same technical design solution is highly unlikely to satisfy the design parameters for the case of AND without the Outer Harbour being in place. PJ)
• Mr Johnson's main objection was that, in his view, there was no evidence of an engineering solution to substantiate the major change now being proposed. (Therefore the technical design solution currently proposed is not proven to work in both the above scenarios. PJ)
• The construction proposed would strict the tidal flow. (The type of construction proposed will dramatically alter the tidal flow, and consequent erosion and/or situation patterns in the whole area. PJ)Mr P Johnson
• Mr Johnson would wish to see more evidence in support of the reefs solution. (The safety aspects can not be ignored. The structure proposed will be very dangerous to all who use the water e.g. swimmers, sailors, surfers etc. PJ)
• Reference was made to the problem of having a breakwater at mid-tide. (If a high spring tide coincides with a high onshore wind and a large storm surge, the consequent large waves will probably not be sufficiently reduced in power in order to prevent serious damage to the seawall/lower parade. PJ)
• In storm conditions the proposed design would be inadequate since it would be beneath the height of the waves.

• There was presently little holding the cliffs together as they were made of sand.
• It would be difficult to advocate any scheme without knowledge with regard to the proposals for the Outer Harbour.
• Mr Campbell questioned the indemnity cover from East Port in relation to any beach and/or coast erosion build up as a consequence of the structure when it was completed.
• The pre-1968 level of beach needs to be restored. It would be a much cheaper option to reconstruct the cozies.
• The Borough Council should make the 'Representations' with regard to the level of aggregate dredging from the outer banks.

• He was not convinced about the evidence as presented.
• He had concern about the effect of the proposed Outer Harbour.
• Man made solutions may affect the current situation.
• Mr Ward questioned the Council's responsibility for the maintenance of the sea wall.
• He believed the case that was being made for the reef solution was because they are of a new concept but he made the point that the design proposed was different to that at Sea Palling.
• Reference was made to the problem of safety with regard to the proposed reefs.
• The beach would still need to be nourished with sand each year if the reef solution was pursued.
• Consideration should be given to a 'polymer fronds' solution where sealed matting would be used rather than rocks.
• Consideration should be given to further armoured rock being provided to protect the sea wall.

• Mr Watson stated that he was disappointed with the way this whole issue had been dealt with, especially by Borough Council Officers.
• He believed that, from his long engineering management experience the report was poor. TW) He believed Halcrow's report had been written in such a way to justify the reef solution.
• Oceanography - on a precautionary principle, this should not go ahead and reference was made to the effect that there would be on the scheme by the offshore windfarm and the Outer Harbour.
• Engineering - the proposed reef design was poor, lacked definition and substance. The sea wall could be repaired using shuttering, re-bars and concreting. Independent expert advice that Mr Watson had obtained backed up his view. He stated that Halcrow's own report showed that this method would cost about £3 million. The damage to the sea wall was due to neglect by the Council, frost damage and poor design, but not as a result of wave damage. TW)
• Safety aspects - these had been overlooked and glossed over.
• Visual impact - this was understated as the proposed reefs would be seen for the majority of the time, (and the navigation poles on the end of each reef would be seen for all of the time. TW)
• In conclusion therefore Mr Watson maintained that the proposal did not stack up and was totally inappropriate.

• Mr Docwra referred to the scheme carried out at Sea Palling and referred to its, in his opinion, perceived failure.
• Mr Docwra was not convinced that the geography at Gorleston was any different to that at Sea Palling.
• The proposed scheme would mean that there would be a swell on both sides.
• If the reefs fail, where is the money to replenish the beach?
• Will funding be used to patch up the sea wall/promenade?
• Mr Docwra made the point that the offshore windfarm was losing sand to the north due to scouring around the bases of the turbines.

Following the above comments of the residents, the Chairman then invited the Council's Officers/consultants to comment as follows:-

• Mr Barrow reiterated the fact that the Borough Council had not reached any firm conclusions on this issue.
• He questioned what would happen to the Gorleston beach in the event of the rise in sea levels as predicted by the Government.
• Nobody can actually be sure what will happen to the beach over the next one hundred years. All proposals were assumptions at this stage.
• Mr Barrow stated that the Council was always looking to repair and improve the sea wall, but questioned again what action should be considered in the event of beach loss.

• The consultants were looking at a one hundred year time frame.
• Mr Hamer sought a consensus from the residents of their view as to whether or not the beach at Gorleston was under pressure.
• Reference was made to the need to ensure sustainable coastal defences.

Following the submission of comments by both the residents and Officers/consultants, the meeting was then asked for views on the following course of action:-

• The Borough Council request their Consultants to prepare a report which would enable a submission to DEFRA for substantial repairs to be carried out to the sea wall in Year One.
• A five year monitoring programme be designed and undertaken to produce a database to monitor beach levels.
• Following the five year monitoring process consideration be given to whether any further beach protection was necessary and if so to identify the most appropriate protection scheme for Gorleston.

In considering the above course of action the following additional points were made:-

• Mr T Watson - there was a need to fully repair the sea wall and, in his view, a need to change the current consultants. He suggested that the consultants used with regard to the Morecombe Bay project should be used.
• Mr M Barrow - the cost of the repairs to the sea wall would be subject to a successful application for Government funding and would not be met by local tax payers.
• Mr P Johnson - there was no confidence in any of the proposed engineering solutions.
• Mr N Ward - if the groynes became exposed who would fund their repair?

The Chairman concluded the meeting by thanking the residents for their attendance and for the comments made at the meeting. He stated that a further Public Meeting would be held in approximately six weeks' time to consider the notes produced from this meeting and to give further consideration to the Council's proposed course of action as outlined above.

The point was made that the Executive of the Borough Council would need to formally agree any proposed course of action. A final proposal would probably be referred to a full meeting of the Council.

It was agreed that the notes of this meeting would be circulated to all those present for confirmation and accuracy, prior to being included in the invitation to the proposed public meeting which would be sent to all those residents who identified themselves at the first meeting. The details of the public meeting would be advertised in both the Great Yarmouth Mercury and Advertiser.

The meeting concluded at 8.05 pm.

I have no recollection, nor any help from my notes, that Mr Barrow stated as written that the cost of the repairs would be subject to a successful application and would not be met by the local tax payers'. If he had so, I would have challenged this, as you may presume, since this implies that no repair will be made if the application is unsuccessful.

My notes show that Mr Barrow stated that at various times in the meeting that the Council would seek a DEFRA grant for the sea wall (as I had suggested in the public meeting) but not for the reefs. He did not state, and there was no suggestion made then that, if not successful, the Council would not pay for the necessary repairs from the normal Council budget. Indeed Councillor Collins made a point of stating, (see below) in answer to my question, that there would be no council tax rise from this exercise since in relation to the total budget, this repair budget was quite small. For clarification it was and still is presumed that if the DEFRA application for funding is not successful, then the Council will repair the sea wall in due course from the local budget.

To this end it is necessary to add under additional points a statement which was omitted:-
Councillor Collins - in the event the Government were not to make a grant, there would be no rise in Council tax from the repair to the sea wall when it was carried out by the Council, since the amount for the repair was small in relation to the total council budget.

Clearly if Mr Barrow stands by his statement, it implies that no repairs will be carried out, whereas the Council has stated this is not an option. I believe Mr Barrows statement was 'the cost of the repairs would be sought from Government funding instead of an application for a reefs installation'. And I suggest that it is written as such.