February 2021 update
THORPENESS – COASTAL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS CONSULTATION
ESC Coastal Partnership East analysis of responses
We were delighted to receive a good response for the public consultation above which ran from 31st July to 30th September 2019. We have now analysed the responses received and illustrated the outcome of the consultation in Appendix 1 for your perusal.
One of the most popular topics raised during the consultation was the potential effect the Scottish Power wind farm and Sizewell C (SZC) could have on Thorpeness. We have therefore provided a response to the concerns raised in Appendix 2.
We are currently preparing a report which will make a recommendation on how to manage the defences into the future under different funding scenarios. The report will include approaches that take account of community feedback, preferences and concerns.
The report recommendations will be shared with other coastal management partners including Natural England, Environment Agency and Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at a Shoreline Management Plan 7 sub-group meeting and then be presented to the Suffolk Coast Forum hopefully at the late February 2020 meeting.
ESC officers will meet with the Thorpeness Community Steering group prior to the SCF meeting to discuss the report findings and any significant feedback received from consultation with partners.
Discussions with the Thorpeness community on potential funding options will continue in parallel with the above.
Option 1: Beach recycle/recharge, monitoring & emergency planning: Possible
Creation and maintenance of a beach wide enough to absorb losses from erosion events would avoid excessive degradation of existing defences. This option works with inherent coastal processes, but sediment availability from local donor sites would be a long-term challenge.
Option 2: Small, low level rock revetment with end transitions: Possible
Strategic placement of ~30 tonnes of rock armour would provide a tried, trusted & robust cliff-toe defence. A rock slope could present an increasing challenge to safe public access over that of existing or alternative options.
Option 3: Medium, low level rock revetment with end transitions: Possible
The medium rock revetment option is larger in scale, potentially offering a higher level of coastal protection, but also instigating higher environmental impact and cost. The rock slope could be built in the space occupied by the geobags.
Option 4: Large rock revetment with end transitions: Not possible – ruled out
Rock revetment on this scale has been ruled out; based on grounds of expense and significant unfavourable environmental impact- due to risk of impeding alongshore sediment movement.
Option 5: Steel sheet pile wall with end transitions: Not possible – ruled out
Driving a line of steel sheet piles (SSP) deep into the beach could constitute an erosional backstop, but is deemed unviable due to the dangerous, and unsightly increase in exposed SSP as the beach lowers.
Option 6: Artificial reef: Not possible – ruled out
A ~250m long artificial reef constructed using suitable materials could significantly reduce wave energy focus on the frontage, with limited impact on the adjacent areas. This option is unviable due to sheer expense of marine based installation.