Library Meeting Sep 2004
Below is the letter sent out by John Hemsworth with minutes relating to the Library Meeting.
Environment and Health
Maltings House
Gorleston
Thu 14th Oct 2004
Dear Resident
I refer to my letter dated 1 October 2004 and I am pleased to enclose for your information a copy of the minutes collated from the notes of the meeting held at Gorleston Library on Wednesday 29 September 2004.
May I thank those of you who contacted both myself and Bernard Harris (Great Yarmouth Borough Services Ltd) following the initial letter - I hope you find the points you raised are now included in the "answers to the questions".
At the meeting the following people put themselves forward to meet with our Consultants Halcrow; J Campbell, A Cunningham, D Partridge, M Smith, T Watson, N Ward,. Copies of the Consultants' Report have been made and are being delivered to them.
Deposit copies of the Report are also available to view at Gorleston Library and the Great Yarmouth Town Hall main Reception. The Gorleston display will be put into the Town Hall foyer next week (last week Norfolk County Council information was occupying the available space).
Bernard is arranging the date for your Representatives to meet with Halcrow - we hope a suitable mutually convenient date by the end of November will be possible. An agreed note from that meeting will be produced and sent to yourselves and our Cabinet Memebers prior to arranging a follow-up public meeting at a venue in Gorleston.
The notes and comments from that further public meeting will be put together with the finalised consultants' report to the Borough Councils' Cabinet in early January.
We hope to be able to put a proposal to DEFRA for their consideration by March 2005.
Yours sincerely
John Hemsworth
Head of Environment and Health
Gorleston Coast Protection Meeting
Gorleston Library on Wednesday, 29th September 2004 - 6:30 pm
- Councillor B Collins - (Deputy Leader, GYBC) - (in the Chair);
- Mr M Barrow - (Corporate Director - Environmental Policy, GYBC),
- Mr J Hemsworth - (Head of Environment and Health, GYBC),
- Mr B Harris - (Engineering and Building Manager, GYB Services),
- Mr M Glennerster - (Halcrow Group Ltd),
- Mr R Dodds - (Members Services Manager, GYBC).
- GYB Councillors: Ames - Coleman - Cook - Page - B Walker - C Walker also attended.
Approximately 200 Gorleston residents attended
The Chairman welcomed the residents of Gorleston to the Public Meeting and introduced the Officers from the Borough Council and from the Coast Protection Consultants (Halcrows).
The meeting received a detailed presentation from Mr M Glennerster (Project Manager Halcrow) on the Gorleston Protection Scheme. Mr Glennerster reported that the reasons for consideration of a Protection Scheme was due to the poor sea wall condition together with the potential erosion of the beach when taking into account the Governments predicted rise in sea levels of 300mm (1 foot) within the next 50 years. He also referred to the effect of low beach levels and on beach lowering that had taken place. The meeting was advised of the "Gorleston to Lowestoft Study" that had been undertaken in 1999. Mr Glennerster reported on the details of the scheme selection process and on an assessment of benefits. He made a point that the option to do nothing at Gorleston was not an option and it was likely that in time the sea wall would fail together with the loss of sand from the beach.
The meeting was advised that the scheme objective was to rebuild the beach and to repair the sea wall. Mr Glennerster reported on the various options that had been considered for the provision of protection at Gorleston which included repairs to the sea wall, the provision of timber or rock groynes, sloping revetments and the provision of reefs. The meeting was advised of the reasons for discounting various options which had resulted in the preferred option now being considered for the provision of reefs.
The proposed scheme would therefore provide eight rock constructed reefs which would be submerged at high tide but would be visible by approximately one metre during periods of low tide. The proposal would also include repairs to the sea wall. Mr Glennerster pointed out that the design concept would be to trap shore sediment. A single layer rock structure was proposed and the reefs would be marked for navigation. In conclusion Mr Glennerster stated that the proposal would provide a wide and healthy beach and would protect the sea wall.
At this stage the Chairman then opened the meeting to the residents of Gorleston for questions as follows:-
Question Index
Halcrow ConsultancyQuestions directed at GYB Council(lors).
The Beach
Safety Issues
Effect of Outer Harbour
Present Sea Wall
The 'Options' and DEFRA
Meeting End
Halcrow Consultancy
Q. Why has the Council not sought advice from other consultants other than Halcrows?
A. The Council has employed other consultants in the past and has chosen to employ Halcrows due to the
level of their expertise and experience. DEFRA recognise Halcrows competence in this field.
Q. Would it be cheaper to remove the shutter piles at the entrance to the harbour and replace with cosies,
and why have these not been considered.?
A. The Halcrow representative stated that he would be prepared to look at this possibility in conjunction
with the Great Yarmouth Port Authority bearing in mind that this will have an effect on the port operation.
Q. Has any work been done as a result of the Pointee's report with regard to man made sea defences?
A. Modelling work has been carried out bearing in mind the comments of the above report.
Q. Has any account been taken with regard the aesthetics effect and safety aspect of the proposed scheme?
(Reference was made to the coastal protection scheme carried out at Morecambe?
A. The Halcrow representative gave details of the scheme carried out at Morecambe and it was pointed out
at the situation at that location was different to the situation at Gorleston.
Q. Has any account been taken of the scouring effect on the Scroby Wind Farm, which has been significantly
greater than we expected. Is it correct that no representation has been made to DEFRA at this stage?
A. The models only looked at effects within a certain area which did not include the effects of wind farms.
The 'Engineers Report' containing the options has not been presented to DEFRA. Any proposed scheme would
have to meet their detailed criteria.
Q. What would be the environmental impact of sand shifting from the north?
A. Sand is being deposited at Gorleston by natural shift of sand between the two piers. The effect of moving
sand from Great Yarmouth beach to Gorleston in the capital recharge programme has been assessed and as the
sand is to be move from above the MHWS the effect on the environment and amenity is not considered to be
significant.
Q. What is the scientific basis of the predicted asset loss on the Gorleston Seafront as there is no loss of
land on the unprotected cliff in the area of the Gorleston Golf Club and no erosion has taken place, and the
details in reports stating that there was an annual erosion rate of 2.4 metres per year may not be correct?
A. Every Government study shows the predicted rise in sea level and that climatic changes are happening. Beach
profile works at Gorleston takes place twice a year by the Environment Agency. Predicted erosion rates are
estimated based on surrounding cliffs in Norfolk/Suffolk and are base on the assumption that the do nothing
approach is adopted as a baseline in the economic assessment.
Q. How long will the proposed reefs last?
A. Schemes are assessed over a life of one hundred years.
Q. What happens at high tide as the reefs are only good at low tide?
A. Reefs are so designed to take out some wave action and reduce wave impact as the waves break over them
and lose energy, thus reducing wave loading and scour effect on the wall. This will assist in sand deposition.
Q. It is inevitable that the sea wall will need to be replaced, so why not spend money on the sea wall and
not the reefs?
A. As explained the purpose of stabilising the beach is to protect the sea wall. By just replacing the sea
wall and not protecting the beach then with the sea level rise there is a likelihood that the sea wall will
need further work in years to come and we will lose the beach.
Q. What is the effect on sedimentation?
A. The sediments that are currently in suspension will accrue near the sea wall. The design of the reefs
and there location is such that they will have minimal effect on the drift sediment drift patterns.
Q. Has enough money been spent on modelling?
A. The Halcrow representative explained that modelling had taken place on various conditions with
consultation with Delft reports, H R Wallingford and reference to the North Sea Sediment Transport Study.
Questions directed at the Council(lors) actions.
Q. What is Councillor Collins' opinion on this issue?
A. Councillor Collins chaired the meeting in his capacity a Deputy Leader of the Council and it would
have been inappropriate to give a personal response to the question. - Whatever we decide to do it
must be right for Gorleston.
Q. If the reef scheme is implemented are the consultants liable should the beach wash away?
A. The consultants have the necessary liability insurance to cover any issue that would be attributed to them.
Q. Is the proposed scheme already programmed?
A. No the scheme has not been programmed and if there is no funds available from DEFRA the works will
not be carried out. It was pointed out that the Government is looking for the best option to be carried
out at Gorleston with a view to providing protection before the problems at Gorleston become too bad.
Q. The residents are feeling suspicious about the proposal although it is accepted that protection is
needed , but that it should be the right protection and does the Borough Council agree that more time is needed
to determine the best option?
A. All options will be considered in detail and no decision will be rushed on this issue. It was made clear
that this was a draft proposal and that the Council still needed to reassure itself over a range of issues.
This consultation event is an important part of the whole process.
Q. Why has the Council been proactive rather than reactive on this issue?
A. The proposed reef scheme is aimed at the protection of the beach. Details of the sea wall repairs carried
out in 1967 were reported when the wall had collapsed and had been rebuilt. A sloping apron had been constructed
in front of the sea wall at that time. It was also pointed out that the sea wall had been repaired structurally
and that the cracks in the sea wall did affect the structure of the wall itself. It was pointed out however,
that the wall was reaching the end of its life span.
Q. What credence can be given to the experts who had designed this scheme?
A. Halcrow are one of the worlds leading experts in coastal engineering matters. An outline of their experience
and expertise was covered in the presentation. The Company are recognised by Government for it competence in this
area.
Q. How can we justify money being spent on the sea wall when aggregates removal is taking place offshore?
A. The Borough has no control over aggregate removal and it is controlled and licensed by the Crown Estate.
Q. Does the Council have copies of the Risk Assessment Reports and how much rock armour is required? Does an
engineering report exist? Is the Council able to answer safety issue questions?
A. The Borough Council wishes to strongly dispel the myth that the Borough Council was undertaking these
proposed works for grant purposes and that the scheme was being carried out for the good of Gorleston. All
options had been looked into and there were definitely no secrets and the point was made that this was in
fact the second public open meeting on this issue. The meeting tonight had been widely advertised in the press
and letters of invitation had been sent to various residents. The Halcrow representative stated that a copy of
the Engineers report compiled to the DEFRA standard format which contains costs for each option could be
available to the public and would be placed in Gorleston Library by Monday next week.
Q. How does this scheme differ from the original proposal?
A. Since the 2002 was proposed further modelling works had taken place and a small realignment of the reef
had been the result, otherwise the consultants had come to the same conclusions on sediment transport.
Q. Can the reefs be removed after they have been installed?
A. Yes but at a cost
Q. Why has there been no consultation since the first meeting held at the Town Hall?
A. The commitment given at the first meeting was that details of options would be available for the public
meeting being held at present. It was decided that it would be helpful if a pictorial display could be
provided to further explain the options and these have been made available in the Library this week.
Q. What about the human element need for this scheme in terms of preventing houses flooding and to protect
the area and to solve the problem by the best method available?
A. The Panel agreed with the sentiment made.
Q. Will the answers to unanswered questions this evening be sent out with the notes of this meeting?
A. Yes, in addition the detailed analysis of each proposal will be made available within Gorleston Library
and the Town Hall from Monday 4 October.
The Beach
Q. As the beach has got bigger over the past few years there is no need for protection as now proposed
so why is this taking place?
A. Sea Levels will rise over the next century which will combine with higher wave heights and periods
and will increase the subsequent risks of erosion.
Q. Why is the sand pushed back three times a year on Gorleston Beach?
A. To prevent the beech becoming too high and blowing over into the promenade and blocking roads.
Q. Why not bulldoze the sand onto the beach?
A. Safety reasons, and possible damage to the highway.
Q. It was the contention that the beach was not in fact losing 25,000 cubic feet of sand?
A. Predictive sea level rises show that this amount could be lost and this is the amount of potential
drift required every five years to keep the coast south of the reefs in balance.
Q. What effect on the Tourism Industry will result from heavy transport transporting sand?
At present there are two options for transporting sand from Great Yarmouth to Gorleston, by road
(which is not favoured) and by sea which would be the best from both an environmental and amenity/tourism
aspect. This is an issue that will have to be examined closely with the Tourism Officer and the eventual
contractor chosen for whichever scheme goes ahead.
Q. Why not extend the existing groynes further out to sea?
A. This is a possibility that could be looked at, however the primary loss of sand is offshore rather than
longitudinal.
Q. Is it true the groynes will be removed?
A. If the groynes are in good condition they will remain, if not they will be removed.
Safety Issues
Q. What are the safety implications at high tide?
A. Discussions had taken place with the Sailing Club about their racing requirements and the point was reiterated
that the reefs would be clearly marked.
Q. There are concerns about the effectiveness of cardinal marking of the reefs and on the need to determine
how best to protect the sea wall. There is a need to build a safe scheme to allow sand to accumulate in front
of the sea wall?
A. This concern was accepted and the issue of marking the reefs is indeed important. Trinity House have been
approached for advice and would be approached again at detailed design for advice on marking. In addition
discussion with local sailors and water users would continue.
Q. Will the reefs have the effect on current to those swimming in this area?
A. There will be fill-in behind the reefs with sand, although there would be some minor currents as result
of the installation of the reefs.
Q. Will any more lifeguards be employed when and if the proposed reefs are built?
A. A risk assessment would be carried out to establish how issues involving public safety can be best
addressed, and the Council will act accordingly.
Effect of Outer Harbour
Q. In the modelling carried out are their any effects shown as a result of the provision of the Outer Harbour
or on the Atlantic Conveyer?
A. Yes the modelling works had taken account of the effects by the provision of the Outer Harbour. The Halcrow
representative pointed out the scheme was planning for the future, although he agreed that the beach was in
reasonable condition at the present time. No modelling has been done relating to the Atlantic Conveyer.
Q. What effect will the Outer Harbour have on this scheme?
A. Modelling work had taken place with regard to the effect of the Outer Harbour, although it was agreed
that there would be some effect as a result of the Outer Harbour scheme. A monitoring agreement was
already in place with East Port.
Q. Does the Council agree that the Outer Harbour will make Gorleston Beach disappear and it is essential
for work to be carried out to the sea wall before any works are carried out in respect of the Outer Harbour?
A. Ongoing maintenance is planned and East Port would take responsibility for rectification works as a result
of any adverse effects caused by the Outer Harbour.
Q. What happens if East Port go into liquidation?
A. In the unlikely event this were to happen, Government have previously taken ports under their management.
Q. Is the construction of the reefs a condition for the Outer Harbour?
A. No, the reefs are no way connected to the Outer Harbour development.
Present Sea Wall
Q. What is the current condition of the steel within the sea wall which is understood to have only a five
year lifespan?
A. The steel thickness of the steel piles were assessed in the engineering assessment of the structures.
Estimate of life for parts of the wall vary, the lowest being around five years. The purpose of the scheme
is that the reefs will build up sand and prolong the life of the sea by protecting the piles from abrasion.
Q. How long before work needs to be carried out on the sea wall? (ie steel failing)
A. No accurate answer is available although a survey carried out on the steel sleet piling and the concrete
wall for the Engineers report identified certain areas that need work before others, some within five years.
Q. How long will the scheme protect the life of the sea wall?
A. Fifty years if the beach management operation is undertaken.
Q. What is the cost to repair the sea wall?
A. At least 0.5m would be needed as a minimum to expend the life to an acceptable standard.
Q. Why has so little money been spent on the sea wall?
A. Circa 300,000 in repairs and maintenance has been carried out on sea defences in the Borough over
recent years.
Q. How much from the Repairs and Maintenance Budget was spent on the sea wall last year?
A. Minimal resources have been spent on the sea wall recently because of the pending scheme.
The 'Options' and DEFRA
Q. Why has the public not been shown every single option and presentation has only concentrated on the
one option of providing the reefs?
A. There is a public display in the entrance to the Gorleston Library which shows all the options
currently considered to afford various standards of defence. Options were developed to afford the required
standard of protection to the sea wall and infrastructure behind. All of the other options are more
expensive than the rock reef option by a considerable amount over the scheme life (which is the criteria
on which schemes are assessed by DEFRA) and would be based on the current DEFRA guidance not receive
grant aid approval by DEFRA and they and others may not be the most practical.
Q. Is the public going to be able to consider Option 5?
A. All options that are presented in the exhibition have bee assessed in line with DEFRA guidance. The
public are welcome to comment on Option 5, however it must be realised that this option places a
potentially higher long term cost requirement on the Council due to recharge quantities required.
Q. Why has analysis not been carried out of all the options?
A. The Engineers report has considered and assessed all of the options on display in the Gorleston
Library to current DEFRA format and guidance.
Q. Is it agreed that there is not enough detail on the display of options in Gorleston Library?
A. The display boards give an outline and summary of each option. The detail is available on the detailed
analysis of each option. It was accepted that more detail could have been presented however this is nor part of
the consultation process.
Q. Is it true that a decision was made years ago to go for the reef option?
A. The Engineers report and data collection and assessment on which it was based has been in preparation
for a number of years and throughout this time after several evaluations it is believed that this is the best
practical option which has the highest possibility of achieving approval and grant aid from DEFRA.
Q. Is it true that the DEFRA funds available for the reefs scheme would be withdrawn if the proposed
scheme in 2002 was not carried out immediately?
A. This is a matter for answer by DEFRA. DEFRA had identified in 2002 that the funding at that time
was of short term availability. Out present bid is not for the same money but is part of the normal
bidding process.
Q. Is it true the scheme will not go ahead if their are objections?
A. DEFRA will consider all comments made on this issue before reaching judgement.
Meeting End
The Chairman concluded the Public Meeting by thanking all residents for their attendance and for the questions and queries that had been raised and assured the residents the Borough Council wished for everyone to be involved in the issue and that full details of the notes taken at this meeting would be circulated to all residents that wished to receive a copy. The point was raised by the public that at the next meeting it might be appropriate to have an independent Chairman in the chair for this meeting. The meeting concluded at 9 p.m.
Return to Question Index Top of Page