MINUTES OF THE ALDE AND ORE ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP
HELD ON THURSDAY 22ND MAY 2014 IN ORFORD TOWN HALL
PRESENT
Edward Greenwell
Guy Heald
Alison Andrews
Brian Johnson
Jane Marson
Richard Marson
Rodney West
Lizzie Hammond
Tim Beach
Frances Barnwell
Amanda Bettinson
(Chairman, Farmer Nominee)
(Finance and Business)
(A&O Association Nominee)
(Boyton and Bawdsey Parish Council Nominee)
(Landowner Nominee)
(Aldeburgh Town Council Nominee)
(Ecological Representative for RSPB, NT, SWT)
(Householder Representative)
(Snape PC)
(Estuary Trust Trustee)
(Partnership Secretary)
ADVISORS
Karen Thomas
Jane Burch
Peter Roberts
(Environment Agency)
(SCC)
(EA Team Leader Asset Performance)
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
APOLOGIES
Barry Leach
David McGinity
Peter Smith
Emma Hay
Trazar Astley-Reid
Andrew Hawes
Bill Parker
Angela Sydenham, Estuary Trust
(Aldeburgh and Orford Business Associations Nominee)
(Butley Parish Council Nominee)
(Orford and Gedgrave Parish Council)
(Natural England)
(Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB)
(Hawes Associates) Consultant
(SCDC)
1.
The Chairman welcomed both Tim Beach, the nomination from Snape Parish Council to
replace Philippa Stewart, and Angela Sydenham for her nomination to the Estuary Trust,
both nominations were confirmed in a private session at the end of the meeting.
2.
APOLOGIES AND DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
Apologies received as above. It was noted that Trazar Astley-Reid had resigned her post
at the AONB unit. Declaration of Interests – None
3.
PREVIOUS MINUTES of 25th March, 2014 agreed
4.
PYE REPORT Alison Andrews discussed Prof. Pye’s draft report and noted that it was
difficult to calculate the area of saltmarsh in the estuary. Since Hazlewood Marsh had
breached an area of managed realignment further down the estuary may also help to
balance the effects of Hazlewood. Before any further schemes were implemented it
would be necessary to carry out hydrodynamic and sediment transport modelling using
the LIDAR/bathymetric DEM tests. Additional funding would be required to do this
and other partners may be approached. The EA noted that any future capital schemes
would require estuary modelling but there was no funding available for this financial year.
SWT/NT/AONB and Locality Budgets were all possible contributors.
JM asked if it could be checked with Prof Pye whether the .6m per second increased
velocity on the Slaughden bend was significant. AA agreed to action this.
Action
AA
It was noted that formal advice on the Government’s new policy on maintenance or
reinstatement of protected marsh land after inundation, due to force majeure, was still
awaited. It was also unclear what action would be taken by the NT and Babcocks
whether or not the American Wall breach on Lantern Marsh would be reinstated. It
was agreed that AA would agree the text with Prof Pye and discuss how action on
further modelling is taken forward.
5.
DRAFT ESTUARY PLAN
Jane Burch agreed that details on the draft plan were progressing well but subtle changes
need to be made to (i) make comparisons against a ‘do nothing’ scenario to balance with
the extreme of building much higher walls (ii) supporting a ‘protect or enhance’ argument
with the environmental and habitat areas and clear maps showing assets and conditions
of SSSI etc and (iii) base line data for housing and population numbers, and a summary
of the geology, historical makeup, floodable area and water quality and link with local
town plans and enabling development (iv) show the collective impact on the whole
estuary. It was agreed a small group should meet to take this forward (Jane Burch, AA,
KT, EH, AJB). Concern was expressed about the Bentwaters planning application for
increased flying and KT suggested that a No Fly zone could be included in the Draft Plan
if necessary. This would be discussed with the RSPB.
It was agreed that Jane Burch would give AA a list of requirements to be shown on a
map.
AA
AA
JB
Feedback on 8th May
The Crown Estates would be writing a formal letter to Suffolk Wildlife Trust that their
land although inundated would remain under SWT ownership rather than reverting to
Crown Estates who own, in most cases, the river bed.
Jane Marson noted that it was difficult to know what the property numbers within the
flood cell related to and the raw data needed to be accessed. Action to discuss with Bill
Parker.
It was noted that the public consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
runs for the next 6 weeks until 5th July. Funding of flood defences is proposed in the
CIL and it was suggested that clarification of the levy as regards enabling development
should be discussed with the planning department.
6.
UPDATE ON FLOOD CELL DESIGNS
A meeting had been held with the RSPB to discuss possible realignment on Flood Cell 1.
The RSPB would not object to the general upgrading of their Boyton walls in the context
of an FC1 maintenance/improvement scheme, but they did have a policy to be adaptive
and would continue to discuss possible lines of realignment with neighbouring
landowners.
Flood Cell ‘0’ – at the 8th May meeting residents and landowners local to the Shingle
Street area discussed where their cell would be best accommodated. The conclusion was
that they would investigate forming their own partnership as their specific issues with low
lying land and complicated hydraulics and coastal aspect did not sit easily with either the
Alde and Ore or the Deben.
Flood Cell 2 – there were concerns with the EA maintenance work which now had
stopped due to breeding birds but work would be commenced in July when the clay
would be compacted and the work completed.
7.
SNAPE WALL UPGRADE
The situation at Snape was discussed in detail. The main points were: No schemes or costs have been worked up or discussed in detail
2
BP
JM






The EA stated that Snape was a priority and Government funding. £75,000 had
been allocated for repair of the Snape wall following the surge tide damage. This
was to cover maintenance, had to be utilised this year and did not include capital
funding.
The sluice at Snape needed upgrading to increase the capacity from 600m to 1m
diameter tidal influenced sluice which would be more able to cope with
surge/high tides.
Local residents who were flooded could apply to SCDC for £5,000 per
household for increasing the resilience of their houses, but the EA had suggested
that this could be pooled to possibly fund a secondary wall closer to the
properties. This needed to be discussed with the local residents and a village
meeting had been called for 29th May at which the EA would attend.
Ground investigation works are already in progress to establish costs and soil
suitability for wall building
The AOEP engineering plans for the river wall would cost about £222,000
(including supervision and VAT) but it would take possibly two years to work up
a capital scheme, discuss with both the village and Snape Maltings as the levels
and protection issues were complicated.
It was agreed that A maintenance scheme to repair the wall/sluice should be
progressed and costed, local property protection should be discussed with the
residents concerned, and a capital scheme for both river walls progressed for a
later date.
A meeting was scheduled for 29th May to discuss with Snape
residents.
8.
HAZLEWOOD MARSH
Discussions are ongoing as to whether a possible wall will be built on the eastern side of
the marsh running north to south to defend some 10 acres of agricultural land and part
of the golf club river green. Residents are not eligible to apply for the £5,000 grants as
the houses did not flood. Suffolk Wildlife Trust were happy for this site to remain
intertidal. A door step survey would be conducted by the EA as there was a possibility
of building a low landscape bund in front of the properties. As the CBR was so low
there would be no Government funding and it was unclear how this would be funded
and maintained unless the residents were prepared to do so.
9.
COASTAL DEFENCES AT ALDEBURGH
The beach defences at Slaughden had been badly affected by the southerly winds all
winter and the groynes immediately fronting the concrete revetments have been exposed
with consequent significant deterioration. Although in the Futures study it had been
thought the defences would be sustainable for the next 30 years this is now doubtful and
a significant capital rock scheme of between £4-6M may be required. At the 8th May
meeting Mark Johnson had stated that the EA would not be able to take on 100% of the
financing and partnership funding would be necessary.
Further discussions will be necessary to work up a number of options and investigating
the Crown Estates shingle/sand engine scheme as discussed at the Suffolk Forum.
Mowing on the recently maintained area of the Aldeburgh Town wall was necessary as
weeds were inhibiting the grass growth. It was noted that the wall was extremely steep
and this could exacerbate the flood defence which, should it fail, there could potentially
be a liability claim against the EA. It was agreed that KT should discuss with Charles
Beardall whether or not such a liability could exist for the EA.
10.
SALTINGS PROJECTS
There was no one available to discuss the new saltings projects and as Trazar Astley-Reid
had resigned her post at the AONB, Rod West agreed to join the saltings group where
his expertise would be useful. TAR had provided a methodology for measuring mud
3
KT
prior to her departure which was being discussed. It was felt a lost opportunity that the
measurements had not been commenced at the start of the project.
11.
FUNDING
Enabling Development: EG noted that the District Council had agreed to discuss their
conclusions by the end of July on the 40 sites that had been offered. It may be necessary
to fund a planning consultant to provide the supporting links between the suite of sites
and the Estuary Plan. If more capital was raised than required for the upgrading any
excess could be used for maintenance which would be needed over the next few decades.
There was a concern that a planning application would be required for upgrading work
but it was hoped that as the walls would not be higher (i.e. enhanced) from the 3.5ODM
as at 1953 they would be exempt this charge. However, additional structures e.g. new
sluices would need planning permission.
RFCC £50,000 allocation to Alde and Ore Estuary Guy Heald and Amanda
Bettinson had attended a meeting with the EA where clarification was received on how
these funds could be used. The payment would be made to the IDB as the statutory
Flood Risk Management Authority and funds can only be used for flood defence work
i.e. Hawes design work, saltings, dredging (applicable to the Deben) pumping stations,
sluices and funding applications for enabling funds elsewhere (IDB would apply on
AOEPs behalf), planning application fees for enabling development etc. An initial
meeting would be arranged with the IDB and Andrew Hawes to discuss which projects
should be funded.
12.
13.
FOOTPATH TRIAL
Due to only one design (from Andrew Hawes) having been received there was some
doubt as to whether this trial would progress which the partnership felt would be
disappointing. This design should be tried as an alternative to the use of hoggin. Two
examples of possible trial material had been laid at Gedgrave for anyone to view. The
final date for submission was 30th May, after which the project team will discuss the next
steps.
NEXT MEETINGS: 10th July and 18th September at 2pm Orford Town Hall.
AJB/27.5.14
4
AJB/EG
JB