Home / Campaigns / Collapsing cliffs: English seaside communities under threat from climate change / Coastlines at risk Coastlines at risk Below we provide detailed information on the Shoreline Management Plans and sea defence schemes for the top 21 English coastlines at risk of erosion. The coastlines are categorised by county, and we have provided weblinks to the full SMP documents and associated strategy documents. See our data table at the bottom of the page for a summary of the SMPs and 2100 property damage estimates for each of the coastlines. North Norfolk – SMP 6 Bacton, Walcott, Ostend Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Hold the Line Med term (2026-2055): Managed Realignment Long term (2056-2100): Managed Realignment The long-term Plan for this area is to allow shoreline retreat once present defences reach the end of their present effective life. This is essential to ensure that problems here and elsewhere are not exacerbated by impairing the movement of beach sediment, which will occur if this shoreline continues to be held in its present position. This policy option will result in the loss of a large number of properties and associated facilities within these settlements. However, the properties and associated facilities located along this length of coast that are at risk from erosion and flooding do not generate sufficient economic benefit to justify prioritised investment in their long-term defence. This area already suffers from low beach levels and it would become increasingly difficult to sustain defences along the present line without considerable investment. For the immediate future defences are to be maintained as far as possible within existing economic justification, whilst measures are put in place to manage this risk and mitigate the displacement of people and loss of property and facilities in the medium-term. There is already overtopping into the Upper Ant, which flows into the Broads, and any worsening of this has the potential to impact on the SPA. Click here to see the full Shoreline Management Plan Sea Defence Schemes A Sandscaping scheme was completed in 2019, where 1.8 million cubic meters of sand were placed on the beaches between Bacton Gas Terminal and Walcott. Monitoring to date suggests the sediment is providing the benefits to coast protection and monitoring will continue. In the medium to longer term there is expected to be a need to adapt and transition to the coastal change. Further opportunities to develop transition and adaptation plans and actions are be developed as part of the current Coastal Transition Accelerator Programme. Mundesley Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Hold the Line Med term (2026-2055): Hold the Line Long term (2056-2100): Managed Realignment Although there might be justification for continuing to defend most of the property and facilities in Mundesley, this is marginal in the longer-term. However, the position of the town on the coast means that potentially it could block up to 70% of the sediment supply for the entire SMP area from reaching beaches here and downdrift if it became a headland promontory, with much of this material potentially being lost offshore. This is a critical supply, without which erosion elsewhere may be accelerated, leading to more rapid loss of property and destruction of natural habitats. Due to the significance of this, the long-term Plan is to allow the cliffs to retreat. However, it should be recognised that this longterm Plan is only viable if reciprocated at Bacton Gas Terminal. This Plan would result in the loss of a considerable number of socio-economic assets at Mundesley and such dramatic changes will require full consideration of the practicality and cost of all alternative technical options (e.g. sediment bypassing), together with the approach, timing, and any measures that would need to be put in place to manage any risk and mitigate the displacement of people and the loss of property and assets. However, at this point in time it is anticipated that it is still some years before this area creates this major interruption to sediment supply, therefore for the immediate future the Plan is that the defences be maintained as long as is technically acceptable and economically sustainable, whilst these investigations are undertaken Click here to see the full Shoreline Management Plan Sea Defence Schemes A scheme is in preparation for the planned continuation of the hold the line of defences policy at Mundesley for the medium term. Overstrand Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Hold the Line Med term (2026-2055): Managed Realignment Long term (2056-2100): Managed Realignment The whole length of cliffs between Cromer and Mundesley provide a vital source of beach sediment area for much of the SMP frontage. Therefore maintaining this sediment input and transport along the coast is a key long-term aim. However, historic defence construction at Overstrand has already formed a significant promontory, and this will have an increasing influence on the sediment drift to downcoast beaches if the present define line is maintained, preventing approximately 20% of the entire SMP beach sediment budget from moving freely along the coast. Furthermore, there is not, at present, sufficient economic justification for new defences. Consequently, the long-term aim for this frontage is to allow the shoreline to retreat. However, there are a large number of socio-economic assets, which will be at risk under this approach. Therefore in the immediate future defences will be maintained as long as possible within existing economic justification, whilst measures are put in place, to manage this risk and mitigate the displacement of people and loss of property and facilities, in the medium-term Click here to see the full Shoreline Management Plan Sea Defence Schemes Defences here are maintained and invested in by NNDC in order to maximise on the functional and to protect from the sea. Groundwater in the cliffs is and remains a key driver for cliff failures. As suggested in the SMP Refresh, further investigations into the impacts of continued hold the line of defences is required in relation to the wider coastal processes and nearby designated environmental sites. Further opportunities to develop transition and adaptation plans and actions could be developed as part of the current Coastal Transition Accelerator Programme. Hemsby Credit: Good Energy/Toby Smith Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Managed Realignment Med term (2026-2055): Managed Realignment Long term (2056-2100): Managed Realignment This area is of international significance for its dune habitats, which require a sediment supply to fronting beaches and fore dune-beach interactions to be able to function. The long-term policy options for the shoreline frontages to the north will enable this requirement to be met, but this will need to be complimented by not constructing defences along this frontage, which would be detrimental to both habitats and natural defence provided by the beach-dune system. The long-term Plan is therefore to allow a naturally–functioning coast to develop through allowing the beach and backshore to evolve with minimal intervention. There is, however, some uncertainty on the long-term evolution of the coast due to the unpredictable nature of the nesses, therefore there may need to be some soft management of the retreat in response to natural changes, for example improved dune access management to limit damage resulting from human activities. The village of Winterton is not expected to be at risk as a consequence of this Plan, although seafront amenities and properties in Newport and Scratby would become vulnerable. Click here to see the full Shoreline Management Plan Credit: Good Energy/Toby Smith Trimingham Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Managed Realignment Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention This frontage provides the largest source of sediment for maintaining beaches along much of the SMP frontage. This is a critical supply, without which erosion elsewhere may be accelerated, leading to more rapid loss of property. Therefore maintaining this sediment input is a key aim for the region as a whole and the proposed long-term Plan is to allow natural functioning of the coast through allowing it to retreat. Although there are socio-economic implications, such as residential and commercial properties at risk from erosion at Trimingham and along the coastal strip to the south, these are not sufficient to economically-justify building new defences along this frontage. Click here to see the full Shoreline Management Plan (Winterton-on-Sea to Scratby) Sea Defence Schemes This coast is highly designated for environmental and geological purposes. Parts of this coast have remained natural and undefended whereas others, attempts were made to defend. Overall many of the measures are deteriorating and there is a need to work with communities and businesses to develop plans to adapt and transition to the impacts of coastal change. Further opportunities to develop transition and adaptation plans and actions are be developed as part of the current Coastal Transition Accelerator Programme. Happisburgh Credit: Good Energy/Toby Smith Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Managed Realignment Med term (2026-2055): Managed Realignment Long term (2056-2100): Managed Realignment In the long term it will not be appropriate to defend Happisburgh due to the impact this would have on the SMP shoreline as a whole, as the coastal retreat either side would result in the development of this area as a promontory making it both technically difficult to sustain and impacting significantly upon the alongshore sediment transport to downdrift areas. Although there are implications, such as loss to erosion of residential properties and amenities at Happisburgh, these are not sufficient to economically justify building new defences along this frontage. Therefore the long-term Plan is to allow natural functioning of the coast through allowing it to retreat. However, in the short term the council will make every effort to minimise the rate of coastal erosion at this location, using appropriate temporary measures, including maintenance of the existing rock bund, with a view to allowing time for measures to be introduced to allow people to adapt to the changes in the medium and long term. Click here to see the full Shoreline Management Plan (Ostend to Eccles) Sea Defence Schemes The historic defences at Happisburgh have or are in the process of failing. A movable rock sill reduces cliff erosion for part of the frontage and a suite of coastal adaptation projects were completed in the 2010’s as trials to manage the short term impacts of coastal change. This included the relocation of a car park and facilities, a new beach access which can roll back with the coast, beach debris removal, purchase, demolition and replacement of homes and the movement of a holiday park. Further opportunities to develop transition and adaptation plans and actions are to be developed as part of the current Coastal Transition Accelerator Programme. East Riding of Yorkshire – SMP 3 Much of the Holderness coastline has experienced rapid erosion over recent centuries. Due to the presences of human settlement along the coast, there are many conflicting local issues and objectives. The management intent of the entire Holderness coastline is to allow erosion to continue whilst sustaining Bridlington, Hornsea, and Withernsea as viable towns and seaside resorts. The rural areas in between these defended towns are eroding at 0.5 – 4 m per year, which puts many properties and agricultural land at risk. The coastal villages in the Holderness Coast will generally not be at risk, but individual properties will be at risk over the timescale of this SMP. In addition to residential properties, there will be loss of or damage to a number of buildings associated with campsites and holiday parks. However, this SMP policy is necessary to ensure natural coastal processes are uninterrupted and that sediment will continue to be supplied to other coastlines in this area. The defended towns will require increasingly sizeable defences as they become more exposed to wave attack. “Castles in the sand” – A film by Sarah Chaundler Wilsthorpe to Atwick Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention In this section, No Active Intervention is the policy to the end of the century Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Rolston to Waxholme Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention but Hold the Line at Mappleton Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention but Hold the Line at Mappleton Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention but Hold the Line at Mappleton but with other options considered subject to monitoring In this section, there will be no active intervention or new defences constructed on the currently undefended areas. However, works may be necessary to maintain a sustainable flood defence in the vicinity of Tunstall Drain. At Mappleton, the current defences will be held for the short and medium term, with monitoring of coastal processes undertaken. In the medium term, assessment of options for maintaining a strategic north-south transport link is likely to be necessary. Monitoring will be undertaken to determine whether continuing to hold the line at Mappleton is still sustainable in the long term and options will be considered. Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Hollym to Dimlington Cliffs Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention This section has a policy of No Active Intervention across all epochs. In the medium term, an assessment of options for maintaining a north-south transport link is likely to be necessary. Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Sea defence Schemes The South Withernsea Coastal Defence Scheme was completed in 2020, removing a significant number of properties at risk. The £7 million scheme has extended the existing defences southwards with 400 metres of rock armour, and includes a new 100 metre terminal rock structure at the end of the defences. Easington to Kilnsea Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Hold the Line for current defences. No Active Intervention elsewhere Med term (2026-2055): Hold the Line for current defences. No Active Intervention elsewhere Long term (2056-2100): Hold the Line for current defences. No Active Intervention elsewhere The policy of No Active Intervention will continue for currently undefended sections. The line will be held in the short term at Easington Lagoons and the Kilnsea Flood Defence, and the intent of management will be to hold the line in the medium and long terms, but other options will be considered subject to monitoring of coastal processes, future studies, and dependent on third party decisions. To ensure sustainable flood defences and meet the requirements of environmental legislation, limited managed realignment of defences may occur. Any Management Realignment of defences will not adversely affect property or known designated and significant historic environment assets. This process will be informed by the Humber Flood and Risk Management Strategy. Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Isle of Wight, SMP 14 Colwell Bay Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention West Wight Coastal Strategy Colwell Bay has a no active intervention policy to support the natural evolution of the coast and no planned investment in preventing erosion. Colwell is characterised by residential housing interspersed with commercial property and are mainly urban areas. The remainder of the zone is more sparsely populated with some leisure businesses such as Linstone Chine Holiday Village, Fort Albert and Fort Victoria Country Park. Click here for the full West Wight Coastal Strategy Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Thorness Bay to Gurnard Bay Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention West Wight Coastal Strategy The area is mainly rural, with a natural environment and open space. Given that this area only has localised erosion risk to properties, is largely undefended and is valued for its natural beauty and environmental importance, the preferred strategy is to work with nature to maintain and enhance the landscape and environment. The Isle of Wight Council will not repair or maintain defences, and no new defences will be permitted where they are not already present. As a result, in the long term, there is an increasing risk of erosion to scattered properties. The West Wight Coastal Strategy recognises that local erosion risks to people, businesses, and coastal footpaths will need to be mitigated or adapted to. Click here for the full West Wight Coastal Strategy Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Quarr and Binstead Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention Quarr and Binstead In the third epoch, the SMP recommends looking at opportunities to realign the coast to the east of Fishbourne Ferry Terminal to adapt to the ongoing coastal erosion processes. This would provide an ideal transitional zone into Quarr and Binstead where the proposed policy is to not undertake any management along this undefended frontage, fully supporting the nature conservation interests. The principal aim over the whole area is to maintain the important regional and national economic viability of the area. As such the policy throughout the area is to continue to defend the key built and recreational assets, but to allow and encourage natural adaptation to sea level rise along the remainder of the coast and estuary. Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Cornwall, SMP 17 Downderry East Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention Significant erosion risk exists to the main link road (B3247) which links Downderry with both Seaton and Looe and this is a locally significant transport route. At Downderry East (PU 2.1), the frontage is currently made up of a combination of undefended cliff face and private defences. The preferred policy along this frontage is no active intervention. This does not preclude the private maintenance of defences to properties, as has occurred in the past, including the gabion wall defences adjacent to the slipway and the substantial vertical masonry walls which are present immediately below the ‘Inn on the Shore’. Around 20 years ago, a feasibility study (John Grimes Partnership, 2001) concluded that there was little economic justification for publicly funded works and that the set back properties were unlikely to be at risk under current erosion rates, with only localised loss of gardens likely to occur. As part of this work, an ‘action line’ was established for the purpose of monitoring ongoing. When erosion reached the ‘action line’ the need for coast protection would then be considered urgent and would (based on criteria at the time) then probably allow grant aid to be sought. The SMP Review recognises the commitment from Cornwall Council to the ongoing monitoring of the action line and recommends this monitoring is continued, to provide an ongoing re-assurance to the community. The most recent monitoring report (John Grimes Partnership, 2006) indicated that erosion rates were generally low across the frontage, with maximum erosion of around 300mm over 5 years being recorded along the section of cliff to the west of the Inn on the Shore. In the medium to long-term, accelerating sea level rise, the soft nature of the cliff geology and the increasing cost to maintain defences are likely to dictate the allowance for the retreat of the cliff line to a more stable, sustainable position. Under the long term plan this frontage could gradually return to a more naturally functioning coastline, and utilise the accessible but higher hinterland to allow gradual adaptation of the community and infrastructure to coastal change. Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Marazion East and Perranuthnoe Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention Marazion East The Marazion area contains a number of conflicting objectives which may prove to be difficult to reconcile, including the reduced reliance on defences whilst protecting the town’s economic and cultural assets and preventing damage to the conservation area. The preferred plan at Marazion town is to hold the line across the presently defended section. There may be a requirement to look at how far east the defences need to extend to prevent outflanking and loss of properties in that area. The preferred policy for the eastern section to Venton Cove is for no active intervention. It is not likely to be economically justified to hold the line in this section, which puts coastal properties at risk. Perranuthnoe The small settlement of Perranuthnoe is some 150 m from the cliff top but there are some limited assets closer to the cliff edge, including access roads, slipway, car park and five residential and commercial properties. Assessments of erosion risk suggests the cliff could retreat by as much as 80 m within 100 years under this NAI scenario. It is economically unjustified to defend the current shoreline position (due to the few properties at risk), which is already held forward from the position it would naturally be in the absence of defences. However, current defences are expected to provide protection for at least 20 years, which will cause outflanking of defences on either side, particularly on the eastern side. A rollback strategy will be needed to manage the coastal impacts to affected properties. Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan Kent, SMP 10 Minster Slopes to Warden Bay, Isle of Sheppey Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention The eroding cliffs along the Minster Slopes to Warden Bay are of national conservation, geological and landscape importance. The long term recommendation is to allow continued erosion of the cliffs, which will maintain the geological exposures, environmental and landscape qualities of the frontage. Development along this frontage is minimal, comprising a few residential properties, caravan parks, campsites and minor roads. Some of these assets will be at risk from erosion and landslide events within the next 100 years i.e. residential properties, caravan and camping sites. There is also a potential for loss of buried unknown heritage with erosion. The long-term (2050-2100) policy sees a continuation of no active intervention for Minster Slopes to Warden Point. This permits erosion of the clay cliffs and shoreline retreat but maintains the coastal landscape, along with the environmental and geological assets. With sea level rise, the naturally functioning coastline will continue to provide sediment inputs to the foreshore, albeit at a slightly greater rate than those experienced historically, which will impact on some of the cliff top assets. Click here for a link to the full Shoreline Management Plan Essex, SMP 8 Point Clear, Colne Estuary Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention The Colne Estuary is designated as a Ramsar site, SAC, SPA, SSSI and NNR because of its international importance for wintering Brent geese and black-tailed godwit and of national importance for breeding little terns and five other species of wintering waders and wildfowl. There are the communities of Point Clear, Brightlingsea, Thorrington, Wivenhoe and Rowhedge. At Point Clear, there is a large caravan site within the tidal flood zone as well as a Martello tower, an associated battery and a museum. Existing flood defences will continue to be maintained in Point Clear [in the flood zone in front of the caravan park]. However, the undefended section to the south will remain undefended. Click here for the full Shoreline Management Plan East Sussex, SMP 11 Fairlight Cove and Cliff End Shoreline Management Plan – click here for the full SMP Cliff End Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention A cliffed frontage of geological, biological and landscape importance, with scattered cliff top development. The plan here is to allow ongoing natural erosion of the cliffs, to maintain cliff exposures of geological and geomorphological importance, as well as the landscape quality (SSSI and High Weald AONB) of the frontage. Cliff erosion provides an input of beach forming sediment to the foreshore which will benefit this frontage and the coast to the east. With clifftop retreat anticipated to be up to 100m over the next century, there will be some loss of properties at Cliff End, together with areas of agricultural land and the need to re-route part of the Saxon Shore Way coast path. Fairlight Cove East Short term (2005-2025): Managed Realignment Med term (2026-2055): Managed Realignment Long term (2056-2100): Managed Realignment This unit covers the section of the clifftop village frontage (Sea Road) that has a cliff toe defence structure in place to limit erosion. This structure is designed to reduce, but not prevent erosion as the cliffs are important for their geology and landscape quality (AONB and SSSI). The long term plan here is to maintain the rock bund defence throughout its design life and thereafter allow it to progressively degrade. During its design life (the next 30 years) the current management and benefits will be maintained. Thereafter its presence will remain but the effectiveness will reduce in light of sea level rise and gradual deterioration of the structure. This will result in gradually increasing erosion of the backing cliff, which will ensure the geological value is maintained and a sustainable cliff top position is achieved. This approach will involve the loss of some clifftop properties, although the number will have been significantly reduced by the rock defences. Fairlight Cove Central Short term (2005-2025): Hold the Line Med term (2026-2055): Hold the Line Long term (2056-2100): Managed Realignment This unit covers the section of the cliff top village fronted by currently active landsliding cliffs, which are of importance for their geological exposures. Recently there has been rapid retreat of the clifftop adjacent to Rockmead Road due to a landslide event which is now settling. This landsliding activity has been attributed to the combined effects of elevated ground water and cliff toe erosion. There is significant uncertainty regarding the future recession potential of the clifftop on this frontage and, as such, the value of assets that might be at risk. Similarly, there is uncertainty regarding the costs associated with works to prevent further retreat. However, it is considered that works may be technically feasible, economically viable and environmentally acceptable, pending further consideration through detailed review of the viability of implementation. As such, a Hold the Line policy is recommended for the short and medium term to protect the cliff top properties. However, the geological importance of these cliffs, together with potential long-term impacts of a toe defence structure, means that the long-term sustainable approach is to allow the frontage to return to natural retreat. As such, the long-term plan is to undertake Managed Realignment in order to achieve a sustainable shoreline alignment, restoring the important geological exposures on this frontage and removing the barrier to natural sediment inputs (cliff erosion) and throughputs (alongshore drift). The long-term policy for Fairlight Cove Central (Rockmead Road) is managed realignment. This recognises that holding the line is not sustainable due to the complex nature of the cliff’s geology. It also recognises that a long term hard defence on this frontage would gradually form an artificial promontory which would increasingly disrupt the alongshore drift of shingle. The implementation of managed realignment would involve the removal/reduced effectiveness of structures built in the previous epochs. With this would come a re-activation of cliff erosion, the rate of which would be influenced by the extent of defence removal. It is possible that, following defence failure/removal, accelerated rates of cliff retreat will be experienced as the cliff ‘catches-up’ to the position it would naturally have achieved without protection in the short/medium term periods. As such, it is possible that the total property losses by year 100 (a further 46 are estimated) may be the same as had defences not been constructed, however this process is highly uncertain. Whilst the property losses will be significant, there will be environmental, landscape, geological and coastal process gains as a result of the policy. It is clear that ongoing retreat is the sustainable shoreline form for this location due to erosion of the frontage maintaining the important geological value, providing beach material to the shoreline and allowing uninterrupted alongshore sediment movement. As such, adopting this policy will have no adverse affects downdrift. Fairlight Cove West Short term (2005-2025): No Active Intervention Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention This frontage covers the western section of Fairlight village, where the properties are set back from the retreating clifftop. The plan is to allow cliff erosion to continue. The bedding of the sands and clay that form the cliff on this frontage creates simple vertical cliffs, rather than the landsliding experienced in the adjacent unit. The continuation of erosion will maintain the geological value of the frontage and continue to provide a source of beach material to the shoreline. It is not anticipated that any properties will become at risk from erosion for many years, probably not until towards the end of this Century. It is possible that properties at the edge of Fairlight village, and the coastal footpaths, may become at risk from cliff erosion during the long term, however their protection is not viable on economic or environmental grounds. Cumbria, SMP 22 Braystones, Nethertown, and Coulderton Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Managed Realignment Med term (2026-2055): No Active Intervention Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention The properties built on the beach seaward of the railway at Braystones, Nethertown and Coulderton will become increasingly at risk of inundation and are expected to be largely unsustainable in their current position in the long term. The SMP2 recommends a number of actions to help facilitate a longer term adaptation strategy along this frontage which should include flood warning, emergency access and ongoing liaison with residents. The SMP2 recommends a managed realignment policy for the short term to allow ongoing local beach management to continue by residents while properties are still viable. For this policy unit, there is a need to develop an adaptation strategy for properties on the beach. It is not technically viable to defend properties on the beach in the medium and long term as sea levels rise, resulting in the loss of properties on the beach crest. Subject to consent, ongoing beach management could help to reduce risks in the short term. No further development should be permitted along the beach. Click here for the full SMP Cumbria Coastal Strategy Between Braystones and Nethertown, there are various defences (Figure 9) including sections of revetment protecting the railway, which are in good condition, and informal defences along the beach properties comprising of gabion baskets and reprofiled shingle berms in various states of condition. At Nethertown car park, the concrete slabbing has failed and overall condition is Poor. Across the Coulderton frontage there are a range of defences that have been placed in an attempt to reinforce the crest of the shingle bank north of the railway arch. There are gabions, random blocks and vertical stone and timber construction and a number of properties at the railway embankment seaward toe. Winter storms in 2013 and 2014 caused movement in the shingle beach and damage to some properties. Local property owners built up the shingle fronting their properties to try and improve the standard of protection. Along this frontage monitoring has indicated an increase in beach reprofiling, increasing the shingle crest height and width fronting the properties. Seaward of the railway line there are several permanent and seasonally occupied beach dwellings which have been constructed on the crest of the gravel and rely on the beach for protection. The winter storms of 2013 and 2014 caused some localised damage to beach front properties and movement of the beach; subsequent beach management was carried out. Predictions of future erosion from NCERM suggest 3-40 m of erosion for this section, under a scenario of no active intervention. Erosion predicted for the frontages is slightly lower than erosion predicted by the SMP2, which suggested that between 50 and 100 m erosion could occur by year 100 along undefended cliffs and 40 to 80 m along currently defended sections. These erosion bands were considered broad enough to incorporate any effects of sea level rise. The key risk to this frontage is storm erosion of the beach and backing cliffs. There are localised tidal flood risks beneath the railway bridges and within the River Ehen floodplain. The properties on the beach and access road (B5344) are also susceptible to erosion of the beach, wave action and tidal flooding. The Cumbrian Coast Line runs along the top of, or in front of, the till cliffs between Sellafield and St. Bees (11d5.4 to 11d5.7). On much of this frontage the railway embankment currently plays a key role as the frontline defence and is showing signs of erosion. Network Rail recognise the need for options and solutions to enhance the resilience of the defence along various sections. There is a risk of erosion to properties located on beach seawards of railway at Braystones, Nethertown and Coulderton. Click here for the full Cumbria Coastal Strategy Northumberland, SMP 1 Chuck Bank Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Managed Realignment Med term (2026-2055): Managed Realignment Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention The overriding intent of the plan [at Embleton Bay] is to allow natural development of the frontage maintaining the highly important assemblage of habitats. Within this the value of Low Newton is recognised and the intent would be to continue defence locally in supporting this community. Defence of this area should aim to encourage and work with the development of the dunes in the area. At Chuck Bank, the increased exposure is likely to drive the dunes landward in the future. This process is already ongoing and some chalets are vulnerable to erosion. Erosion of this soft frontage does supply important sediment source to the main Embleton Bay and a Managed Realignment policy along Chuck Banks would assist in developing a resilient dune system in the centre of the bay, where the dunes are of particularly high ecological value. Such a policy also is compatible with the national coastal policy of The National Trust, who is landowner in this area. Click here for the full SMP Dorset, SMP 15 Durlston Bay Shoreline Management Plan Short term (2005-2025): Managed Realignment Med term (2026-2055): Managed Realignment Long term (2056-2100): No Active Intervention The overriding intent of the plan is to maintain the geological value through allowing natural coastal evolution. It is recognised that there will be property at risk in the medium to long term along the frontage and the plan acknowledges the contribution that basic drainage systems can provide in slowing the recession of the cliff line. This would be assumed to be simple drainage which addresses run off at the cliff top, preventing excessive flow over the crest and down the slope. Acknowledging this dictates the difference between managed realignment and no active intervention at this policy unit. However this is seen as a nonstrategic measure which needs to be assessed at local level (virtually at individual property level) and therefore associated costs are specific to those circumstances. Following local assessment this would only be recommended under the overall plan if it could be demonstrated that it did not impact significantly on the opportunity to maintain the natural coastal change. The more strategic intent of the plan at this location would be not to remove existing defences or slope stabilisation measures but to allow such works to deteriorate over time. Measures need to be considered as how best to assist individuals with property at risk through discussion and through the planning process. To inform this, it is essential that monitoring of the frontage is continued and improved. The long term aim is to be in a position during the final epoch to adopt more fully a policy of No Active Intervention. Summary of preferred SMP policy: Undertake no maintenance of existing defences, support consideration of improved cliff-top drainage measures, and develop adaption plans with property owners in the short and medium term. No active intervention in the long term. Click here for the full SMP CountyCoastline location; SMP start and endSMP Policy (Short, Medium, Long term)Est. property losses by 2100Est. property damages by 2100North NorfolkBacton, Walcott, Ostend; Kelling Hard to LowestoftHTL, MR, MR412£108,793,544ER of YorkshireHollym to Dimlington Cliffs; Flamborough Head to Gibraltar PointNAI,NAI,NAI306£68,085,000North NorfolkMundesley; Kelling Hard to LowestoftHTL, HTL, MR267£88,925,952ER of YorkshireRolston to Waxholme; Flamborough Head to Gibraltar PointNAI, NAI, NAI (HTL at Mappleton)188£13,391,240North NorfolkOverstrand; Kelling Hard to LowestoftHTL, MR, MR139£58,305,218North NorfolkHemsby; Kelling Hard to LowestoftMR, MR, MR135£39,124,350North NorfolkTrimingham; Kelling Hard to LowestoftMR, NAI, NAI120£32,401,080EssexPoint Clear (Colne Estuary); Felixstowe to Two Tree IslandNAI, NAI, NAI117£44,070,039ER of YorkshireWilsthorpe to Atwick; Flamborough Head to Gibraltar PointNAI, NAI, NAI93£6,946,170KentMinster Slopes to Warden Point (Isle of Sheppey); Isle of Grain to South ForelandNAI, NAI, NAI87£24,696,777ER of YorkshireEasington to Kilnsea; Flamborough Head to Gibraltar PointNAI, NAI, NAI (HTL at Kilnsea)61£4,748,118East SussexFairlight Cove East and West, and Cliff End; South Foreland to Beachy HeadNAI at FC West and Cliff End, MR at FC East43£26,348,895CornwallDownderry; Rame Head to Hartland PointNAI, NAI, NAI38£18,570,258DorsetDurlston Bay; Hurst Spit to Durlston HeadMR, MR NAI37£9,065,000Isle of WightColwell Bay; Isle of WightNAI, NAI, NAI36£4,365,000Isle of WightThorness Bay to Gurnard Bay; Isle of WightNAI, NAI, NAI33£9,614,319CornwallMarazion East and Perranuthnoe; Rame Head to Hartland PointNAI, NAI, NAI28£9,035,600Isle of WightQuarr and Binstead; Isle of WightNAI, NAI, NAI23£7,582,134NorthumberlandChuck Bank; Scottish Border to the TyneMR, MR, NAI20£4,091,160CumbriaCoulderton, Nethertown, Braystones; Great Ormes Head to ScotlandMR, NAI, NAI18£996,966North NorfolkHappisburgh; Kelling Hard to LowestoftMR, MR, MR17£4,813,380Abbreviations: No Active Intervention (NAI), Managed Realignment (MR), Hold the Line (HTL)2218£583,970,200Property damage estimates by 2100 for the 21 at-risk coastlines ⇦ Interactive map Understanding the data ⇨ Disclaimer This information is provided for guidance only. Please see the full disclaimer in our terms and conditions. Please share this article and comment on social.
