Shoebury Common Sea Defence Notes I think most people would agree that rising sea levels, high

tides and storm surges increase the risk of coastal flooding, especially along the east coast of the British Isles and since the floods of 1953, many lessons have been learned and preventative measures, like the Thames Barrier, put in place. Until the late 1980s the philosophy behind sea defence design was very much considered a battle against the forces of nature so most of the defences constructed were mass concrete structures or a series of such structures designed to hold the line. Since the early 1990s however, researchers at various universities including East Anglia and supported by the Environmental Agency have come up with a different approach to flood defence using offshore reefs or barriers to dissipate wave energy before it reaches the top of the beach. This new type of approach not only prevents toe erosion, which is where the base of the defence is worn away by undercurrents causing it to eventually crack and decay, but it also retains a healthy beach in front of the old sea wall. An example of such an offshore defence is the detached breakwater scheme, developed by Halcrow at Sea Palling on the north Norfolk coast, an area badly hit by the floods in 1953. Shoebury Common has been identified by the council as an area at risk of flooding. Residents have been told at public meetings and on posters that the existing sea defence currently protect against a 1 in 200 year event, but that this is likely to rise to 1 in 50 over the next 100 years. Clearly being told there is a 1 in 50 year chance of a flood makes someone living near the common rather anxious as one tends to think there will certainly be a flood within 50 years and that unless you immediately put preventative measures in place the risk of a flood will increase by 2% year on year. However it doesnt mean this. All a 1 in 50 year flood risk means is that the average time between two successive floods or breaches of the sea defence is 50 years and it could be 100, 200 or any number of years before a flood. In fact, the council know that the flood risk at Shoebury Common is not that urgent, because in response to a comment that there are areas in the town with lower flood defences, (item 13 of the officers response to comments made during the public consultation), they admitted that Western Esplanade was at higher risk but that it would be some time in the future before they raised the defences there. They also

admitted that the timing of the proposal had been triggered by the coincidence of the availability of the Cliffs Slip spoil and of the 950,000 contribution from a developer, in return for planning permission to build 184 more houses on a flood plain nearby. Despite the information they were given at these meetings, and despite a scaremongering campaign by Cllrs Cox and Hadley in the form of a leaflet circulated to residents which showed houses partially submerged and containing a statement that there was a flood risk of 1 in 5 years rising to 1 per year, the majority of those residents who provided feedback after these meetings were unconvinced and strongly against all of the proposed options put forward by the council, (as section 6.12 of the Place Scrutiny Committee Report shows). However, after acknowledging that the consultation responses give no clear support for any of the options, particularly the preferred option, the council report goes on to say in section 6.14 that a significant proportion of people have based their choice on misleading information and point out that the strongest support was from residents in the flood area which is precisely the area targeted by the misleading leaflet put around by Cllrs Cox and Hadley. They then go on to completely ignore these views saying they are under no legal obligation to consult with the residents and that the council is committed to protecting its local environment. Of course many of those residents who submitted their views wont be at this meeting so will never know that the consultation was just a farse and makes a complete mockery of local democracy. Following this so called public consultation, the Friends of Shoebury Common proposed a raised prom alternative and BERA proposed another scheme, which the council evaluated alongside their own preferred option. In the report, the BERA proposal is presented as a Total Value Scheme, whilst the Friends of Shoebury Common and the Councils preferred scheme show 15 year costs, rather than a whole life cost which would need to include future maintenance, beach recharge and rebuilding requirements. This is misleading and gives the councils preferred option an unfair advantage. To do proper cost comparison requires a breakdown of the whole life cost for each proposal, and until the council is prepared to do this, then no meaningful comparison can be carried out.

Finally I would like to point out that the Government recognises that it is important to invest in flood risk and coastal management and continues to increase public spending on it, from 600 million in 2007-2008 to 800 million in 2010-2011, so funding packages available through the Environmental Agency are unlikely to dry up in the foreseeable. The fast track grant that Cllr Lamb would have us believe is the only funding available through the Environmental Agency is not true and giving ourselves more time to properly cost and consider alternative schemes for the defence of Shoebury Common would allow us to apply for a grant that may be more appropriate. One of the key purposes of the Environmental Agency is to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole and to create a rich, healthy and diverse environment for present and future generations. Putting what amounts to just a pile of mud on Shoebury Common is a quick and dirty solution that the majority of people dont want and which will only ruin the look and feel of a much loved area.