St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
ST BEES HEAD TO RIVER SARK, SCOTTISH BORDER
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN
November 1998
VOLUME I
CORE REPORT
VOLUME II
ATLAS
VOLUME III
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
INTRODUCTION
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
Contents
St Bees Head to River Sark, Scottish Border Shoreline Management Plan
Glossary
Abbreviations
Maps
Map 1 - Boundaries and Coastline Responsibilities
2
Map 2 - Bathymetry
3
Map 3 - Typical Rates of Coastline Movement
4
Map 4 - Coastal Geomorphology
5
Map 5 - Nearshore Wave Conditions
6
Map 6 - Tidal Conditions
7
Map 7 - Foreshore and Seabed Sediments
8
Map 8 - Potential Longshore Sediment Transport
9
Map 9 - Locations and Types of Coast Defence Structures
10
Map 10 - Areas at Risk from Flooding
11
Map 11 - Planning Framework
12
Map 12 - Nature Conservation Designations
13
Map 13 - Coastal Habitats
15
Map 14 - Recreation and Amenity
16
Map 15 - Cultural Heritage
17
Map 16 - Coastal Land Use
18
Map 17 - Land Use, Coastal Process and Management Units
19
Section 2: Strategic Coast Defence Policy Option Appraisal
20
Management Unit 1 - St Bees Head to Kells
21
Management Unit 2 - Kells to Whitehaven
22
Management Unit 3 - Whitehaven to Redness Point
Bullen Consultants Limited
1
23
Management Unit 4 - Redness Point to Harrington Parks
24
Management Unit 5 - Harrington Parks to River Derwent
25
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
Management Unit 6 - River Derwent to Siddick
26
Management Unit 7 - Siddick to Risehow
27
Management Unit 8 - Risehow to Maryport Harbour
Bullen Consultants Limited
96M477/4Catlas
28
Management Unit 9 - North Maryport
29
Management Unit 10 - Maryport to Dubmill Point
30
Management Unit 11 - Dubmill Point to Silloth Harbour
31
Management Unit 12 - Silloth Harbour to Skinburness Bank
32
Management Unit 13 - The Grune
33
Management Unit 14 - Skinburness Creek to River Wampool
34
Management Unit 15 - River Wampool to Cardurnock
35
Management Unit 16 - Cardurnock to Bowness on Solway
36
Management Unit 17 - Bowness on Solway to Drumburgh
37
Management Unit 18 - Drumburgh to River Sark
38
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
ST BEES HEAD TO RIVER SARK, SCOTTISH BORDER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN
This document accompanies the Core Report of this SMP. The scope of these two documents is
outlined below:
Core Report: This document describes how the coastline relevant to this SMP has been
considered as a number of “Management Units”; those lengths of coast with coherent
characteristics in terms of natural coastal processes and land use. It sets out the Management
Objectives of the SMP with regard to the whole coast and the Management Units. The Strategic
Coastal Defence Options are then appraised in terms of these Management Objectives and the
Preferred Options are thus derived.
The remainder of the Core Report is concerned with recommendations for future research and
monitoring of the coast, and recommendations for the future review procedures for the SMP.
Atlas: The Atlas comprises 17 maps accompanied by short descriptions of the information
presented. A list of the maps included in the Atlas is provided in Table 1. The maps/text
describe the relevant information considered in determining the SMP and illustrate how the
proposals have been derived. The information in the Atlas is presented in two sections.
The first section presents information on the following key issues:




coastal processes
coastal defences
land use and the human environment
natural environment
The information presented is the result of the data gathering and consultation exercises
undertaken during the preparation of this SMP.
The second section presents the appraisal of the Strategic Coastal Defence Policy Options.
Preparation of this SMP
This SMP has been developed in two stages, Stage 1 dealt with the data collation, analysis,
interpretation and objective setting and Stage 2 with the integration of all information which,
together with the results of the consultation, led to the preparation of the coastal defence
strategies.
The procedure leading to the production of this SMP is shown in Figure 1.3 of the Core Report.
At the beginning of Stage 1 (Dec 96) a scoping document was issued to over 100 interested
parties to advise them of the project and to request relevant information. Data collected was used
in the preparation of the Stage 1 Report which was issued to members of the Steering Group for
their evaluation and comment, then subsequently revised as appropriate.
During Stage 2 the Strategy Policy Options for the management of the coastal defences were
developed and Management Units were established. These were presented in the draft SMP
which was issued to the members of the Steering Group for consultation in May 1998.
Table 1: Index to Maps
Map No.
Title
Table 1: Coastal Processes, Human and Built Environment and Natural Environment
Information
1
Boundaries
2
Bathymetry
3
Typical Rates of Coastline Movement
4
Coastal Geomorphology
5
Nearshore Wave Conditions (Parts 1 and 2)
6
Residual Tidal Currents
7
Foreshore and Sea Bed Sediments
8
Longshore Sediment Drift
9
Location and Type of Coast Defence Structures
10
Areas at Risk from Flooding
11
Planning Framework
12
Nature Conservation Designations (Part 1 and 2)
13
Coastal Habitats
14
Recreation and Amenity
15
Cultural Heritage
16
Coastal Land Use
17
Management Units
GLOSSARY
Bullen Consultants Limited
Armour
Rock, blockwork etc used to armour an embankment.
Astronomical Tide
The tide levels and flows which result from gravitational effects of the celestial
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
bodies (eg. Earth, Moon, Sun etc.) without any meteorological influences (eg.
Pressure systems, storms etc.)
Atlas
This document provides a summary of data collected during the preparation of the
Shoreline Management Plan, as well as the appraisal of the Strategic Coastal
Defence Policy Options.
Bathymetry
Shape of the seabed.
Breastwork
Form of vertical coastal defence structure.
Chart Datum
The level to which tide levels and water depths are related on marine charts. On
UK charts this level is approximately the level of the lowest predicted astronomical
tide (LAT).
Coast Protection
Authority
Authority responsible for the protection of the coast from erosion by the sea.
Coastal Defence
Term used to describe any form of defence which protects against erosion and/or
flooding by the sea. This includes hard and soft defence methods and in the case
of flooding also covers natural defences.
Coastal Process
Unit
A length of shoreline which has consistent characteristics in terms of coastal
processes.
Coastal Protection
Structure designed to protect the coastline from erosion by the sea.
Core Report
This document sets out the strategy for the coast between St Bees Head and the
River Sark. It includes details of the appraisal process leading to selection of the
preferred options. It also contains recommendations for future monitoring,
research and updating.
Coriolis Force
Force experienced by bodies of water due to the rotation of the earth on its own
axis.
Ebb
Period when the tide is falling. Also taken to mean the ebb current which occurs
during this period.
Estuary Head
Landward boundary of an estuary.
Estuary Mouth
Seaward boundary of an estuary.
Flood
Period when tide is rising. Also taken to mean the flood current which occurs
during this period.
Gabions
Form of coastal protection constructed from wire mesh frames filled with rock
material.
Geomorphology
The study of landforms and landforming processes.
Groynes
Coastal structures lying at right angles to, and connected to the shore for the
purpose of trapping sediment moving along the shore and thereby building up the
level of the foreshore. They may be constructed from timber, concrete, steel
sheet piles or rock.
Hard
Defences
Defences that tend to confront and resist the natural coastal processes, eg.
Seawalls.
Inshore
Part of the nearshore zone between the ordinary low water level and the line
where waves first start to break. This area defines the part of the sea where
waves are affected by the presence of the sea bed.
Inter-tidal Banks
Areas of sand or mud banks exposed for part of the tidal cycle.
Joint Structure Plan
Sets out broad planning strategies and policies for county areas for the control of
planning and development.
Land Use Unit
A length of shoreline which has consistent characteristics in terms of land use.
Local Plan
A document which sets out planning control policies at a district level.
Longshore
Transport Rate
The rate at which sediment travels parallel to the shore under the influence of
waves or currents.
GLOSSARY
(continued)
Bullen Consultants Limited
Management
Objectives
Objectives for the management of the shoreline. These objectives form the basis
for the appraisal and development of the strategic coastal options.
Management Unit
A length of shoreline with coherent characteristics in terms of both natural coastal
processes and land use.
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
Nearshore
Area from the ordinary low water level to the limit of nearshore currents. This
area defines the part of the sea where waves and currents are affected by the
presence of a landmass.
Neap Tide
Tides of small range which occur twice a month.
Photogrammetric
Survey
Survey carried out by taking aerial photographs. By examining the positions of
the coastline relative to fixed points such as large buildings etc a record of
coastline movement can be established.
Pleistocene
Era of time spanning from ten thousand to two million years ago.
Residual Tidal
Current
Resultant current over a full tidal cycle.
Revetment
A sloping surface of stone, concrete or other material used to protect an
embankment, natural coast or shoreline against erosion.
Ruderal
Plants growing on waste land.
Scoping Document
The document issued to interested parties prior to the preparation of this SMP.
The document was issued in order to establish what relevant data regarding the
coastal processes existed and what the major concerns of the contacted parties
were in regard of the coastline and its use.
Sea Defence
Structure which provides flood aleviation to a stretch of coastline. These
structures are usually designed to protect from an estimated highest water level
which is thought to be likely to occur in a specified time span.
Sea Wall
Solid vertical coastal structure built parallel to the shoreline.
Sediment Cell
A length of coastline which is relatively self-contained as far as the movement of
sediments is concerned.
Semi-diurnal tides
Tides which have two high waters and two low waters during a 24 hour period.
Shoreline
Management Plan
A document which sets out a strategy for coastal defences for a specific length of
coast, taking into account coastal processes and the human and built
environment and natural environment.
Significant Wave
Height
The average of the highest one third of waves.
Slack Water
The period during the tidal cycle when the water level is neither rising nor falling.
Soft Defence
Defences which aim to protect the shoreline by working with the natural processes
(eg. Dune systems, sand traps etc.).
Spit
Ridge of natural material (eg. sand, gravel) extending from the land into the sea,
usually formed by geomorphological processes.
Spring Tide
Tides of large range which occur twice a month when the moon is new or full.
Statutory Protection
Protection derived from legislation
Strategic Coastal
Defence Option
Coastal management strategy eg. Do nothing; advance; retreat; hold the line.
Tidal Range
The vertical difference between the flood and ebb tidal flows.
Wave Refraction
The effect on the direction of waves due to the sea bed.
ABBREVIATIONS
Bullen Consultants Limited
B/C Ratio
Benefit to Cost Ratio
BNFL
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
cSAC
candidate Special Area of Conservation
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
Bullen Consultants Limited
96M477/4Catlas
CWT
Cumbria Wildlife Trust
ESA
Environmentally Sensitive Area
GCR
Geological Conservation Review
JNCC
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
LNR
Local Nature Reserve
LUU
Land Use Unit
MAFF
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
MHWN
Mean High Water Neaps
MHWS
Mean High Water Springs
MLWN
Mean Low Water Neaps
MLWS
Mean Low Water Springs
MOD
Ministry of Defence
MSL
Mean Sea Level
NNR
National Nature Reserve
NPV
Net Present Value
PAGN
Project Appraisal Guidance Notes
PPG
Planning Policy Guidance
PVb
Present Value benefits
RIGS
Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site
RNLI
Royal National Lifeboat Institution
RSPB
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
SAC
Special Area of Conservation
SAM
Scheduled Ancient Monument
SMP
Shoreline Management Plan
SMR
Sites and Monuments Record
SNCI
Site of Nature Conservation Interest
SPA
Special Protection Area
SSSI
Site of Special Scientific Interest
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAPS
SECTION 1:
COASTAL PROCESSES, HUMAN AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 1 - BOUNDARIES AND COASTLINE RESPONSIBILITIES
This map indicates the boundaries of the various authorities holding responsibilities related to the
coastline, together with the extents of this SMP.
The three Coast Protection Authorities for the length of coast covered by this SMP are Allerdale
and Copeland Borough Councils and Carlisle City Council. These authorities respond to duties
under legislation to protect the coastline from erosion by the sea where it is appropriate to do so.
The Environment Agency covers the entire length of the coast and has permissive duties to
protect against flooding from the sea.
Cumbria County Council is the highway authority for the whole of Cumbria and undertakes works
to protect highways where under threat and where appropriate to do so.
The map also shows the Barrow to Carlisle railway line. Railtrack plc have no statutory
responsibilities to defend the coast but do undertake works to defend the railway line in their
commercial interest.
Sources of Information
Allerdale Borough Council. Allerdale Local Plan. 1997
Carlisle City Council. 1995. Carlisle district Local Plan.
Copeland Borough Council. Undated. Copeland Local Plan
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, 1995, Shoreline Management Plans, A guide for
Coastal Defence Authorities.
-
Ordnance Survey
-
Ordnance Survey
1:25,000 Pathfinder Series Nos. 544, 556, 557, 566,
575, 583 and 593
1:50,000 Land Ranger Series Nos. 85 and 89
2
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 2 - BATHYMETRY
This map illustrates the bathymetry of the sea bed off the northwest Cumbrian coast. The
contours are in metres relative to Admiralty Chart Datum which at Workington is 4.20m below
Ordnance Datum.
The sea bed of the Irish Sea is relatively shallow and slopes gradually to the coast. Notable
features which influence coastal processes are the solid rock outcrops and steeply shelving
foreshore at St Bees Head, the harbours at Whitehaven, Harrington, Workington, Maryport and
Silloth, the sand bars off Dubmill Point, Moricambe Bay and the Solway Firth estuary.
Sources of Information
-
Admiralty Chart No. 1346, 1976, Hydrographic Office
Admiralty Chart No. 1826, 1979, Hydrographic Office
Admiralty Tide Tables 1996
Admiralty Tide Tables 1997
3
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 3 - TYPICAL RATES OF COASTLINE MOVEMENT
This map shows the locations along this coastline that are considered likely to experience a
retreat or advance of the coast. The assessment is based on what is know of the coastline
evolution to date and the assumption that the West Cumbrian railway line is not relocated inland.
Likely rates at which the coastline may retreat/advance, based upon the assessment of
Ordnance Survey Maps, are also shown. The rates quoted (in m/year) are typical for that length
of coast and will reflect average conditions.
Sources of Information
-
Ordnance Survey
Ordnance Survey
Ordnance Survey
Ordnance Survey
Ordnance Survey
-
Ordnance Survey
1:2500 First Series, 1860
1:2500 Second Series, 1899
1:2500 Third Series, 1924
1:10,000 1975
1:25,000 Pathfinder Series Nos. 544, 556, 557, 566,
575, 583 and 593
1:50,000 Land Ranger Series Nos. 85 and 89
4
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 4 - COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY
This map illustrates the main beach and nearshore geomorphological features.
The northwest Cumbrian coastline can be divided into three zones, coastal, outer estuary and
inner estuary.
The coastal zones consist predominantly of narrow dune belts fronted by shingle and sand
beaches except between St Bees Head and Whitehaven, where the beach is backed by cliffs
and at frontages where lengths of hard coastal defences exist, for example at Silloth. Between
Whitehaven and Workington the foreshore is backed by eroded slag deposits and narrow dune
and grassland areas between the foreshore and the railway line.
The outer estuary, from Dubmill Point to the Grune is made up of more extensive dune systems
fronted by shingle ridges and sand beaches while the inner estuaries (Moricambe Bay and the
inner Solway Firth) are dominated by saltmarshes with the foreshore consisting of silt and sand.
Given the glacial geology of the area and the large movements that have occurred in sea levels,
many features have been formed by geomorphological processes.
The phenomenon of raised beaches can be observed in many places along this coastline and an
exposure of submerged forest, carbon dated to around 8000BC, can be found near Beckfoot.
Saltmarshes have developed as the result of the deposition of muddy sediments of fluvial and
marine origin in the upper reaches of the Solway Firth and Moricambe Bay. These deposits and
those of much earlier times are progressively reworked by the continued movement of the
estuarine channels.
Sources of Information
Associated British Ports, Undated, The Port of Silloth.
Associated British Ports. 1987. Silloth Coastal Study, Executive Summary and Main Report,
Report commissioned by ABP Barrow and Silloth.
Cumberland County Council. Undated. North Cumberland Coast - Coastal Development and
Conservation Report.
JNCC, 1996: Coasts and Seas of the United Kingdom.
Marshall J.R. 1962. The morphology of the upper Solway salt marshes, Scottish Geographical
Magazine, Volume 78
Tooley M.J. 1974. Sea -Level Changes during the last 9000 years in North West England,
Geographical Journal, Volume 140.
5
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 5 - NEARSHORE WAVE CONDITIONS
This map presents inshore wave conditions along this part of the west Cumbrian coast.
Wave data was obtained and analysed for two different Meteorological (Met) Office, UK wave
model locations, the most relevant of which is located at the mouth of the Solway Firth, off St
Bees Head.
Analysis of the data shows that the majority of the waves approach the Cumbria Coastline from
the south-west quadrant. This coincides with the largest waves which are generated over fetches
reaching out to the Atlantic Ocean. Waves from this direction are the only waves that will have
significant wave activity on the stretch of coast from St Bees Head to the River Sark.
Estimates of the annual average inshore significant wave height and direction of travel are shown
in Map 5 for the coast from St Bees Head to Moricambe Bay. Mean Wave Heights show a
reduction from about 0.6 - 0.7m at St Bees Head to about 0.1m at Silloth. The dominance of
offshore waves from the south west results in a mean wave attack direction acting up the coast.
The annual extreme significant wave heights for this stretch of coast are presented in the table in
Map 5. These have been given at the zero Chart Datum line. The effect of the seabed contours
and depth limited conditions results in annual extreme wave heights at Chart Datum 25-45%
smaller than offshore conditions.
The sheltering effect of St.Bees Head results in smaller annual extremes in the lee of St. Bees
Head of about 4.25m to about 4.7m just north of Whitehaven. From this point until Allonby Bay
annual extremes are fairly constant at about 4.7 - 4.8m, apart from a sharp reduction to about
3.5m just north of Maryport at the start of Allonby Bay.
The sharp reduction of extreme annual wave heights north of Allonby Bay to about 3.8 - 3.9m will
mainly be as a result of the sheltering effect of Southern Scotland to waves from the west.
Sources of Information
Draper L. 1967. Wave Activity at the Sea Bed around North Western Europe, Marine Geology,
Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Volume 5.
Met Office. 1968. Tables of surface wind speed and direction over the United Kingdom, London,
HMSO.
Met Office. Wave Height, Direction and Period Data, 1988 to 1996, Met Office Data Point
54.50oN 004.10oW.
Met Office. Wave Height, Direction and Period Data, 1988 to 1996, Met Office Data Point
54.25oN 003.66oW.
Reeve D. Bin Li. 1994. MAFF/NRA Joint Wave Measurement and Validation. Phase ll.
Modelling, Comparison and Validation. Final Study Report, October 1994.
6
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 6 - TIDAL CONDITIONS
This map shows the residual tidal currents for the west Cumbrian coast.
The coastline of this SMP is exposed to semi-diurnal tides, which flood broadly in a northerly
direction along the coast and ebb in the opposite direction.
The flood tide is generally directed at 050ON along the coast lasting approximately 5 ½ hours
with a peak velocity of 0.5 m/s on spring tides off St. Bees Head, increasing to 2.0 m/s off
Dubmill Point. The ebb tide is in the reverse direction, 230ON approximately and lasts for about 6
½ hours with a peak velocity of 0.5 m/s off St Bees Head, increasing to 1.8 m/s off Dubmill Point.
In the Solway Firth the spring tide flood lasts for approximately 5 hours at Silloth, with a range of
approximately 8 metres, but decreases with distance into the Firth and at Redkirk only lasts for
approximately 2 hours with a range of about 4 metres. Similarly the spring tide ebb decreases
from approximately 7 hours at Silloth to 6 hours at Redkirk, with the remainder of the tidal periods
at Redkirk being slack water.
Off Dubmill point the flood tide achieves a mean flow rate of 1.0m/s and a mean ebb flow rate of
0.9m/s.
During neap tides the tide periods for Silloth are approximately the same as for Springs (i.e. 7
hours ebb, 5 hours flood) but the range is reduced to approximately 3 metres. At Redkirk the
effects of the tide are minimal during neaps, both the floods and ebbs lasting approximately 1
hour, the rest of the tidal period being slack water. The range at Redkirk during neaps is only
about 0.5m.
Sites where sea level measurements are taken exist at Whitehaven, Workington and Silloth.
Some data was also obtained from CRG report F70-01-90 for sites at Newbie Glasson and
Redkirk Point. The variation of typical and extreme sea level estimates is shown in the tables
below. All levels are in metres above Ordnance Datum and the locations to which the levels
refer are shown on Map 6. It should be noted that Newbie and Redkirk are on the Scottish side
of the Solway and therefore outside the boundaries of the SMP. However, the water levels given
for these locations apply equally across the section of the Solway concerned and will be
approximately the same at a point opposite the location were the level applies.
Typical Tide Levels:
Location
Whitehaven
Workington
Silloth
Newbie
Glasson
Redkirk
MLWS
MLWN
MHWN
MHWS
-3.20
-3.30
-3.60
-2.10
0.24
1.89
-1.80
-1.60
-2.10
-1.89
0.24
1.89
2.10
2.10
2.70
2.65
2.74
2.93
3.80
3.90
4.80
5.00
5.40
5.52
Extreme Tide Levels:
Location
Whitehaven
Workington
Silloth
Newbie
Glasson
Redkirk
10
25
Return
50
Period
100
(years)
250
500
1000
5.29
5.67
6.15
6.35
6.93
7.04
5.47
5.81
6.37
6.57
7.18
7.29
5.59
5.89
6.53
6.73
7.37
7.47
5.70
6.00
6.67
6.87
7.53
7.63
5.86
6.11
6.91
7.11
7.80
7.90
5.96
6.16
7.08
7.28
8.00
8.09
6.04
6.22
7.24
7.44
8.18
8.27
Sources of Information
-
Admiralty Chart Nos. 1346 and 1826, Hydrographic Office
Admiralty Tide Tables 1996
Admiralty Tide Tables 1997
Howarth M.J. 1990. Atlas of tidal elevations and currents around the British Isles, Proudman
Oceanographic Laboratory.
Ramster J.W. 1973. The residual circulation of the northern Irish Sea with particular reference to
Liverpool Bay, Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft, Technical Report Series, Number 5.
7
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 7 - FORESHORE AND SEABED SEDIMENTS
This map shows the character of the offshore seabed sediments and the sediments on the
foreshore.
The sea bed material is very varied. It consists of fine to medium sand and sandy muds
overlying tills, fluvio-glacial and glacio-marine sediments. Such extensive areas, covered by
fluvio-glacial sands and gravel are thought to be the major source for the accumulation of
material on the sandbars and flats within the region. A south-west to north-east orientated
channel is present off Allonby Bay. The grading of material in this channel, ie. coarse at the
south-west end becoming finer to the north-east, would indicate the influence of stronger currents
associated with the presence of a flood channel.
To the south of Maryport the foreshore sediments are predominantly pebbles and cobbles with
occasional areas of boulders. North of Maryport, the composition becomes finer with sand and
shingle occasionally interspersed with gravel stretching up to Moricambe Bay.
In 1991, bed grab-sampling was carried out near Annan and Bowness and from the deeper main
channels in the Solway Firth. The results from the collected samples within the study area
indicate that the bed material is almost entirely composed of fine sand. This gets progressively
coarser in the outer firth and in the deeper water off Silloth and Maryport.
On the salt marshes and intertidal sand flats, sediments are predominantly fine to coarse sands.
Consideration of both tidal currents (Map 6) and the prevailing wave climate (Map 5) indicate that
the resultant movement of the offshore sediment deposits are towards the coast. As the wave
conditions predominate closer to the cost the movement of sediment in this area tends also to be
northwards along the coast.
Sources of Information
Ove Arup and Partners. 1993. Chapelcross Hydrographic Survey, Report commissioned by British
Nuclear Fuels.
JNCC, 1996: Coasts and Seas of the United Kingdom.
Luders K. 1939. Sediments of the North Sea, Recent Marine Sediments, A symposium,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A. 322.
Pantin H.M.1978. Quaternary Sediments from the North-East Irish Sea: Isle of Man to Cumbria,
Bulletin 64 of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, Institute of Geological Sciences, Natural
Environment Research Council.
Solway Firth Partnership. 1996. Solway Firth Review.
Steers J.A. 1948. The Coastline of England and Wales, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 8 - POTENTIAL LONGSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
This map shows the potential longshore sediment transport. Transport is parallel to the shoreline
and the rates given apply at the locations shown.
The movement of nearshore sediments by incident wave activity was examined using the
predicted nearshore wave climate (Map 5) together with the typical beach sediment
characteristics (Map 7). The calculations are based upon the CERC formula, Shore Protection
Manual (1984), which accounts for beach slope and incident wave angle relative to the beach
normal in addition to wave and sediment characteristics. The resultant predictions of longshore
drift rate are of potential sediment longshore transport and take no account of whether that
volume of sediment is available for transport or not. Map 8 shows the nett annual drift rate and
direction for the exposed coast based on annual average wave conditions but should be treated
qualitatively for the following reasons:

The bathymetry from which the beach slope and inshore wave direction is determined is
based on coarse hydrographic soundings taken from Admiralty Charts.

Only a single size sediment grading has been adopted, d50 = 0.240mm. Although this is
considered representative of the lower beach it will not be appropriate for the coarser shingle
deposits closer to the shoreline.

The predictions have taken account of varying tide levels but do not include for any influence
of tidal currents.
Sources of Information
Coastal Engineering Research Center, ‘Shore Protection Manual’, Department of the Army, US
Army Corps of Engineers, 1984
Meade R. Landward transport of bottom sediments in estuaries of the Atlantic Coastal Plain,
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Volume 39.
9
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 9 - LOCATIONS AND TYPES OF COAST DEFENCE STRUCTURES
This map shows the location and form of the different coastal defence structures along this
length of the coastline. Only man-made defences have been included, natural defences such as
shingle ridges and saltmarshes are not shown.
An assessment of the condition and effectiveness of each structure was made and the results
are shown on the map. The condition of the structures was assessed in terms of the life
expectancy, where this is taken to be the time remaining before the structure requires replacing.
The effectiveness of the coastal defences has been taken to mean the ability of the defence to
resist coastal erosion, or in the case of sea defences the standard of protection provided against
flooding.
Estimates for flood aleviation structures have been made from the Environment Agencies 1991
Sea Defence Survey. A new survey is to be carried out soon and the updated Sea Defence
Survey will be published in Early 1999.
Sources of Information
Bullen Consultants (1997)
Walkover Survey of Coastal Defences
Environment Agency (1990, 1991)
Sea Defence Survey
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. 1994. Coast Protection Survey of England, Survey
Report for Allerdale District Council.
10
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 10 - AREAS AT RISK FROM FLOODING
This map shows the areas along this stretch of coastline which are at risk of flooding due to the
50 year struck water level. Flooding due to wave activity is not shown.
This map is based on the extreme sea level estimates given in Map 6 and assumes that should
the existing sea defence structures not be of sufficient standard to prevent overtopping, the land
behind the sea defences will flood to the extreme sea level.
Sources of Information
-
Ordnance Survey
1:25,000 Pathfinder Series Nos. 544, 556, 557, 566,
575, 583 and 593.
-
Ordnance Survey
1:50,000 Land Ranger Series Nos. 85 and 89.
11
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 11 - PLANNING FRAMEWORK
National Planning Guidance
The Government sets out national planning policy in Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG’s)
and Circulars. PPG’s provide guidelines to local authorities on implementing planning policies,
and circulars provide guidance on the enforcement of legal requirements. Example PPG’s
relevant to this SMP are PPG20 (Coastal) and PPG9 (Nature Conservation).
County Councils are required to take into account PPG’s and Circulars as well as the Habitats
Regulations when drawing up Structure Plans and Local Plans.
The Department of Environment Coastal Forum, formed in 1995, is the main body responsible for
the co-ordination of coastal zone policies and practice.
Map 11 illustrates the areas of planning constraints relevant to the SMP.
Structure Plan Policies
The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (1991-2006) provides a statutory planning
framework for the County of Cumbria. The Structure Plan sets out the broad planning strategy to
guide the development and other use of land in the County to the year 2006, to protect and
enhance the environment and to influence the management of traffic.
The main principles of the structure plan seek to ensure that the social and economic needs of
Cumbria’s people are met but in a way that does not damage the County’s environment. The
plan provides a framework for more detailed Local Plans prepared by District Councils and
National Park Authority.
Policy 2 of the Structure Plan (Conserving the Natural and Built Environment) states:
“The County’s scenic beauty, natural resources and the quality of its built environment will be
protected from inappropriate development, especially those areas and features of international or
national conservation importance where harmful development will not be permitted.”
Policies 11, 13, 17, 18 and 26 relate to the protection of nature conservation, landscape and
historical interest.
Other policies within the plan relate to specific areas and forms of development.
Local Plan Policies
The study area is administered by a number of Local Authorities ie. Copeland Borough Council,
Allerdale Borough Council and Carlisle City Council. Each authority has prepared a Local Plan
which sets out in detail policies for the control of development, proposals for the development
and use of land and to bring local and detailed planning issues before the public.
The Local Plans have regard to national policies and generally conform with the Cumbria and
Lake District Joint Structure Plan. The authorities have adopted a number of policies in order to
protect features of interest within the plan areas.
Copeland Borough Council Local Plan (Deposit Version) was prepared in July 1994 and a
number of policies have been adopted in relation to development in the coastal zone and
protection of nature conservation and historical interests. Policies ENV1, ENV 3, ENV 4, ENV 5,
ENV 6, ENV 7, ENV 47, ENV 50 and ENV 51 control development in areas of nature
conservation and archaeological value.
Allerdale Borough Council Local Plan (Deposit Version) was prepared in July 1997. Policy CZ4
relates specifically to coastal development including coast protection and sea defence. Policies
CO15, CO24 and CO26 relate to the protection of historical interests and policies EN22, 23, 28,
29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 relate to the protection of nature conservation and landscape
interests.
Carlisle District Local Plan (Deposit Draft), prepared in February 1995, has adopted a number of
policies in order to protect the coastline and features of interest along the coast. Policies E6, 9,
10, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30 relate to development in areas of nature conservation and historical
interest. Policy E2 relates specifically to the protection of Areas of Oustanding Natural Beauty.
Sources of Information
Copeland Borough Council, 1994:
Copeland Local Plan (Deposit Version)
Carlisle City Council, 1995: Carlisle District Local Plan (Deposit Draft)
Allerdale Borough Council, 1997:
Allerdale Local Plan (Deposit Version)
Cumbria County Council and Lake:
District National Park Authority
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan
1991-2006
12
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 12 - NATURE CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS
Areas of the coastline between St Bees Head and River Sark are covered by statutory and nonstatutory designations to protect features of nature conservation interest. Sites are protected at
local, national and international levels with different designations providing varying degrees of
protection. The legislation relating to the various conservation designations is summarised
below:
Special Area of Conservation
(SAC)
-
Designated under the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC
and implemented into UK Law by Conservation (Natural
Habitats & c) Regulations 1994 and the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981.
Special Protection Area (SPA)
-
Designated under the EC Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and
implemented into UK Law by Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 and Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations
1994.
Ramsar Site
-
Designated by the UK government on the advice of the
conservation agencies under the Ramsar Convention (the
Conservation on Wetlands of International Importance
especially as Waterfowl Habitat).
Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI)
-
Notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981.
National Nature Reserve
(NNR)
-
Declared under Section 19 of the National Parks and Access
to the Countryside Act 1949, or Section 35 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981.
Local Nature Reserve (LNR)
-
Designated under Section 21 of the National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
Cumbria Wildlife Trust
Reserve
-
Designated and managed by Cumbria Wildlife Trust.
Wildlife Site(Also known as
Site of Nature Conservation
Importance - SNCI)
-
Designated by County Wildlife Trust and accepted by local
authorities.
Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB)
-
Designated by the Countryside Commission, under the
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
Geological Conservation
Review (GCR) Site
-
Selected by the Geological Conservation Review and
identified as having national or international importance for
earth science.
Regionally Important
Geological/
Geomorphological Sites
-
Designated by local RIGS group and accepted by local
authorities
These sites are illustrated on Map 12 (comprising two sheets) and a description of the site
designations and main features of interest is given in the table below:
SITE NAME
St Bees Head
Harrington
Reservoir
DESIGNATION
SSSI
RSPB Reserve
Heritage Coast
GCR Site
LNR
Siddick Pond
SSSI
LNR
Maryport Harbour
SSSI
Salta Moss
SSSI
Silloth Dunes and
Mawbray Banks
Wedholme Flow
SSSI
SSSI
MAIN FEATURES
Maritime cliffs*
Sea cliff vegetation, colonies of fulmar, cormorant, shag,
kittiwake, razorbill, guillemot and puffin. Breeding site for
black guillemots. St Bees Sandstone. Landscape value.
Important for nationally declining species - bullfinch,
grasshopper warbler, reed bunting and spotted flycatcher.
1 pair of mute swans.
Ornithological interest esp. waterfowl, nesting and
wintering bird. Important rarities - little bunting, black tailed
godwit, black-necked grebe, black tern, ruff, green
sandpiper and bewick swan.
Grassland and ruderal spp. Nationally rare purple or
yarrow broomrape (Orobanche purpurea) (most northerly
site). Important site for small blue butterfly.
Moss modified by peat working, drainage ditches and
burning. Flora different to typical raised mires*.
Extensive sand dune system*. Natterjack toad** and great
crested newt**.
Extensive lowland raised mire*. Peatland vegetation.
Breeding birds. Colony of large heath butterflies
(Coenonympha tullia) and large damselfly is at the
northern limit of its British range.
13
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
Bowness
Common
SSSI
Glasson
Moss
SSSI
Drumburgh
moss
Upper Solway
Flats and
Marshes
SSSI
Solway Firth
pSAC
South
Solway
Mosses
Solway
Mosses
Rockcliffe
Marsh
NNR
Largest raised mire in England*. Area of active bog growth. Good
range breeding birds including sparrowhawk, curlew, snipe and
sedge and grasshopper warblers. Black grouse and hen harrier.
Large heath butterfly.
Extensive lowland raised mire* (1/3 retains intact mire surface).
Breeding birds, large heath butterfly and spider Centromerus
laervtaris (1 of only 4 English localities).
Extensive lowland raised mire*. Breeding birds and large heath
butterfly.
Intertidal flats and marshes*.
Internationally important numbers of waterfowl (20,000)
Internationally important populations of 10spp waterfowl (in winter).
Nationally important wintering populations of a further 9 species.
Subtidal sandbanks Glasswort (Salicornia) and annual sea blite
(Suaeda maritima).
Extensive active raised mires*.
pSAC
Active raised bogs* and associated plant communities.
CWT
managed
site
CWT
Reserve
Extensive area of saltmarsh*, intersected by drainage creeks and
lagoons. Wintering species and breeding birds.
RSPB
Reserve
RIGS
Wader roosts eg. Oystercatchers, knots, curlew, grey plover and
bar tailed godwits. Large flocks of wildfowl eg wigeon. Peregrines,
barn owls and pink footed geese.
Landscape value. Marine terraces, sandstone cliffs, undulating
dunes, intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh and peat moss.
Exposure of eroded drumlin continually renewed by erosion.
RIGS
Westphalian C delta top sequence.
RIGS
Highly academic educational study of the coal measures. Industrial
archaeology and local history of Whitehaven.
RIGS
“Permanent” exposure of coal seam and seat earths.
RIGS
Clean Westphalian A sedimentary structure. Delta sequences.
RIGS
Saltpans and reconstruction of a Roman Mile Fortlet. Swarthy Hill
is a landform feature providing the context for these.
Exposure of forest soil resting on what is believed to be an ancient
beach.
Bowness on
Solway
Gravel Pits
Campfield
Marsh
SSSI
Ramsar
pSPA
Solway
Coast
Glasson
Point
Tom Hurd
Rock
Bransty
Quarries and
Parton Cliffs
Lowca
Railway Bank
Cunning
Point
Swarthy Hill
AONB
Submerged
forest nr
Beckfoot
Mawbray
Banks (nr
Beckfoot)
RIGS
RIGS
Recolonised old gravel pit workings. Smooth and crested newts.
Breeding birds and migrant birds.
Cross section showing positions and nature of a raised beach
formed when sea level was “25 ft” above present sea level
* Habitats selected in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for which Habitat Statements have been
prepared. These statements identify the main issues which need to be addressed to conserve
each habitat type and allow it to retain its biodiversity.
** Species for which specific Action Plans have been devised as part of the UK’s Biodiversity
Action Plan. These species have been selected as a result of their decline in range or
distribution.
The designation of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) provides the statutory mechanism
through which other national and international designations are implemented. Special Protection
Areas (SPA’s), Ramsar sites and possible Special Areas of Conservation are of international and
European importance and, as such, are afforded special protection.
Sources of Information





Nature Conservation Site Citation Notes
English Nature
Cumbria Wildlife Trust
Shoreline Management Plans; a guide for coastal defence authorities, MAFF 1995.
Biodiversity: The UK Steering group Report. Volume 2: Action Plans
14
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 13 - COASTAL HABITATS
The habitats found along the length of the coast are shown in Map 13. The data is compiled from
Phase 1 Habitat Survey Maps and Coastal Sensitivity and Access Maps.
The figure illustrates the major habitat types present on the coastline including dunes, saltmarsh,
shingle, sand and silt beaches.
Within the Solway Firth, in the north of the plan area, saltmarsh and raised grass marsh are the
dominant habitats. Seaward of the marsh there are areas of extensive mud and sand flat. The
whole estuary is of national and international importance for wintering wildfowl and waders. In
addition the area has breeding populations of gulls, terns and waders and supports natterjack
toad (Bufo calamita), great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) and several uncommon species of
flora.
Sand dune systems back the majority of the shore from Silloth to Maryport and the dunes lead to
a gentle shingle slope giving way to extensive intertidal sand flats and shingle shore. The
foreshore south from Workington Harbour is largely gravel and cobbles and sandstone cliffs
outcrop from Whitehaven south to St Bees Head.
Natterjack toad colonies exist at Allonby, Anthorn, Grune Point, Mawbray Bank and Silloth/Wolsty
and between May and July there is a little tern (Sterna albifrons) colony on Mawbray Bank. In a
number of places, along this length of coastline, mussel (Mytilus edulis) scars have formed and
Sabellaria alveolata colonies occur on the lower shore at Dubmill Scar and less extensive areas
down the coast to Workington.
The Sabellaria alveolata reef community is identified in ‘Guidelines for the Selection of Biological
SSSIs; Intertidal Marine Habitats and Saline Lagoons’ (JNCC, 1996) as being of ‘national or
more than national importance.’
Sources of Information



Phase One Habitat Survey Maps
Coastal Sensitivity and Access, Cumbria. Report prepared for ESSO by ERT, 1996
English Nature (SSSI, pSAC Citation Notes)
15
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 14 - RECREATION AND AMENITY
Map 14 illustrates the principal recreation and amenity activities in the area.
Amenity
This area of coastline is popular with visitors and tourists. The landscape, in particular the
Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, offers a wide variety of scenery and
recreational opportunities for tourists, with watersports, bird watching, coastal footpaths,
cycleways and golf courses. The coast is used for both formal and informal recreational activity.
Walking is a popular activity throughout the plan area due to the numerous rights of way and the
Cumbria Coastal Way.
The cultural heritage of the area attracts a large number of tourists, in particular the Hadrian’s
Wall World Heritage Site.
The following explains the key used on the map:
Amenity Beach/ Sea Bathing
Location where the beach is used for amenity purposes.
Wildlife Interest waders and seals).
Location where wildlife can be observed (eg. wildfowl,
Marina or
Mooring Area
-
Location of boat mooring facilities and water based
activities.
Caravan Park
-
Location of a caravan site.
Golf Course
-
Location of a formal course.
Horse Riding
-
Location where the beach is used for this activity.
Parking
-
Car parking facilities available.
Sailing
-
Sailing club active in this area.
Sea Angling
angling clubs are active.
Location where sea angling is a popular activity and sea
Windsurfing
-
Locations at which this activity is popular.
Canoeing
and clubs.
-
Locations at which this activity is popular, both individual
Sources of Information

Coastal Sensitivity and Access, Cumbria. Report prepared for ESSO by ERT, 1996
16
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 15 - CULTURAL HERITAGE
Sites of local and national archaeological importance are illustrated on Map 15. The Cumbria
County Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) provides details of sites of local archaeological
interest along the Cumbrian coastline. There are approximately 600 SMR sites within the SMP
area. Although sites listed on the record have no statutory protection they provide an important
insight into the nature of the archaeological resource of the area. Finds from prehistoric, Roman,
Medieval and post Medieval periods have been recorded on the SMR. The SMR is continually
updated with new finds.
The Roman influence on this area is particularly apparent within the northern part of the plan
area. Hadrian’s Wall linear structure and its associated castles and forts is one of the most
significant complexes of archaeological remains in the world. The linear structure extends west
to Bowness on Solway and the chain of towers and mile fortlets extends southwards to Maryport,
Workington and Moresby. The site is designated as a World Heritage Site acknowledged and
protected by the UNESCO World Heritage Convention for outstanding universal, artistic and
technical value.
Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM’s) are scheduled by the Department of National Heritage
on advice from English Heritage in England under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Areas Act 1979. Such sites are deemed to be of national importance and there are 77 SAM’s
within the SMP area, many of which form apart of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site.
Listed Buildings are ones that have been indicated on a list compiled by central government as
being of “special architectural or historic interest”. Local planning authorities are responsible for
determining the majority of proposals affecting listed buildings. There are 23 listed buildings
within the study area, 7 of which are churches.
Sources of Information


Sites and Monuments Record
National Monuments Record
17
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 16 - COASTAL LAND USE
The current land use of the coastal zone is illustrated on Map 16. The data has been compiled
from Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plans and shows the distribution of land use within the following
classifications:







Rural
Built Environment
Industry
Woodland
Recreation
Ministry of Defence
Other
Land use within the area of the plan is predominantly rural, being, for the most part agricultural
land classified as Grade 3, with some smaller land areas classed as Grade 4 or Grade 5
agricultural land.
Built environment, recreational and industrial land uses occur along the coastal zone. The main
areas of built environment and industry are centred upon the commercial towns of Silloth,
Maryport, Workington and Whitehaven. Other smaller built environment land uses occur in the
residential areas of Drumburgh, Glasson, Port Carlisle, Bowness on Solway, Anthorn,
Skinburness, Blitterlees, Beckfoot, Mawbray, Allonby, Flimby, Siddick, Harrington and Parton.
The only existing military use of the coastal zone within the SMP area is a 500 acre radio station
at Anthorn and a small part of Bowness Common SSSI. The Ministry of Defence has freehold
ownership of this area and the military use comprises a small HQ building and several masts.
The land is also used for some stock rearing.
Sources of Information


Phase One Habitat Survey Maps
Public Consultation
18
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MAP 17 - LAND USE, COASTAL PROCESS AND MANAGEMENT UNITS
Map 17 shows the extent of the Management Units for this SMP.
Management Units were determined based upon a detailed assessment of Coastal Processes and
Land Use and the similarity of relevant Management Objectives.
To define the Management Units the coast was first divided into two sets of units, Coastal Process
Units and Land Use Units. Coastal Process Units comprise lengths of coast over which the coastal
processes that shape the coast remain constant. Land Use Units comprise lengths of coast over
which the land use of the immediate hinterland (typically up to 1km inland) remains constant. Both
types of unit are also shown on Map 17.
The compatibility of both sets of these units at particular locations with those at adjacent locations in
terms of the variation in the relevant Specific Management Objectives, was assessed to formulate
Management Units (refer to Section 2 of Volume I, the Core Report).
19
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
SECTION 2:
96M477/4Catlas
STRATEGIC COAST DEFENCE POLICY OPTION
APPRAISAL
20
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 1 - ST BEES HEAD TO KELLS

Do Nothing (Viable)
This option fulfils the majority of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. The slow
loss of agricultural land and the need to re-route the coastal footpath will continue to occur due to
the slow erosion of the sandstone cliffs, but these are not considered significant impacts in
relation to the coast defence policy. This option is the only one for this Unit which is economically
worthwhile.

Hold the Line (Rejected)
Holding the line will not be compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit.
The material released from erosion of the cliffs is required to maintain the beaches further north
and any interference with this process would be detrimental to the adjacent units. This Unit
contains an area designated as heritage coast and is part of the St Bees Head SSSI. Any
solution involving the construction of hard defences would be incompatible with these
designations and is not economically worthwhile.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Advancing the line would not be compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this
Management Unit for the same reasons as holding the line.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet nearly the same objectives as the ‘Do Nothing’ option it is not
economically worthwhile.
Summary
Only the ‘Do Nothing’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is compatible
with natural processes, economically justifiable and preserves both the landscape and natural
environment interest.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Do Nothing’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
21
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 2 - KELLS TO WHITEHAVEN

Do Nothing (Viable)
This option fulfils the majority of management objectives of the SMP within this
Management Unit since the coastline appears currently to be reasonably stable, therefore
presenting a natural form of flood defence. It is, however, recommended that the stability of the
cliffs backing the foreshore is assessed at regular intervals. This is the only option which is
economically worthwhile.

Hold the Line (Rejected)
This option conflicts with the SMP objectives for this Management Unit since it would be
incompatible with adjacent units and the natural processes. It is not economically worthwhile and
conflicts with the natural environment and recreation and amenity interests.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Advancing the line would not be compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this
Management Unit for the same reasons as holding the line.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit including the
coastal defence issues. It is, however not economically worthwhile due to the relatively small risk
to human life or property and it is therefore not considered appropriate.
Summary
Only the ‘Do Nothing’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is compatible
with natural processes, economically justifiable and preserves both the natural environment and
recreation and amenity interest.
There will however be detrimental impacts with the potential future threat to Saltom Pit Engine
House and Ancillary Buildings Scheduled Ancient Monument, but given the slow rate of coastline
recession this is not presently considered significant. If Saltom Pit is threatened in the future it
may be necessary to carry out works to protect this monument. Alternatively it may be more
economically viable to carry out a full archaeological survey, including photographic records in
order to preserve the monument for future generations.
There is concern regarding the cliff stability in this Unit which may affect the safety of the public
and a public right of way. Emergency remedial measures are currently being undertaken and
more permanent solution is being considered. A monitoring program to regularly inspect the
condition of the cliffs should be adopted as part of the policy option for this Unit.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Do Nothing’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
22
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 3 - WHITEHAVEN TO REDNESS POINT

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes would put the railway line at risk
of being lost which would have significant detrimental impact on the local and regional economy
and would be in conflict with the SMP coastal defence objective.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. Although it is not compatible with the
natural process it is unlikely to cause significant impacts since hard defences already exist in this
Unit. Sensitive design of new or repair works would enable improvements to the natural
environment, landscape, recreation and amenity value of the coast.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option would meet the requirements for protecting infrastructure it would be
considerably more expensive and cause greater conflict with the natural coastal processes and is
therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option.
Summary
The ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is the most appropriate Coastal Defence Policy Option for this
Management Unit as it is economically justifiable and preserves the economic, infrastructure and
recreation and amenity interests.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
23
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 4 - REDNESS POINT TO HARRINGTON PARKS

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes and natural environment is not
consistent with the other objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. Since the railway line
already lies close to the foreshore in this Unit and it is unlikely that Railtrack will decide to
relocate the line further inland it will be necessary to protect the railway line from erosion which
cannot be achieved by this option. The option would therefore be in conflict with the SMP coastal
defence objective.

Hold the Line (Viable)
The option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. Hard defences already exist in this Unit
and sensitive design of new or repair works would enable improvement to the natural
environment, landscape, recreation and amenity value of the coast.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option. Although this option does meet the coastal defence
requirements the relocation of the railway line is not practical.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture, economic, infrastructure
and recreation and amenity interests. These will however be detrimental impacts due to the
incompatibility of this option with the natural processes and the natural environment issues but
many of these impacts will already be present and can be minimised.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
24
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 5 - HARRINGTON PARKS TO RIVER DERWENT

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes is not consistent with the other
objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is therefore not viable. The option conflicts
with the SMP coastal defence objective and the Environment Agency’s duties under the Water
Resources Act (1991) to provide satisfactory flood protection to residential areas (eg. Harrington).
The railway line and dock facilities, as well as the British Steel works at Workington contribute
significantly to the local and regional economy and must be protected.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. Hard defences already exist in this Unit
and sensitive design of repair or new works would be required in order to minimise the impacts
on the natural processes. Gravel is extracted south of the harbour arm south of Workington in
order to reduce silting up of the harbour channel and disposed of commercially. The
reintroduction of this extracted material to the north of the harbour could make this option more
compatible with the natural processes and the effects of this should be investigated.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture, economic, infrastructure
and recreation and amenity interests.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
25
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 6 - RIVER DERWENT TO SIDDICK

Do Nothing (Viable)
Due to the present condition of the defences in this area and the fact that the coastline
appears reasonably stable this option is considered viable at present. However, it is likely that in
the long term protection will need to be provided for the wind farm and the landfill site situated in
this Unit.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. Hard defences already exist in this Unit
and sensitive design of repair or new works would be required in order to minimise the impacts
on the natural processes. The option is however a long term defence policy and it is likely that in
the short term no actions will be necessary since the defences in this Unit are in reasonably good
condition and the coastline appears fairly stable. The exception to this are likely to be the wind
farm to the north of the harbour and the landfill site, both of which will require protection more
urgently than the rest of this Unit.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable. There is no advantage in this
option over holding the line and it would not be economically worthwhile.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is
therefore not viable. The coastline is already very close to the important infrastructure in this Unit
such as the wind farm and a managed retreat option is not possible without conflicting with the
SMP coastal defence objective.
Summary
Both the ‘Do Nothing’ and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy options are appropriate in the short term.
However, the potential flood risk in the long term makes it more economically worthwhile to hold
the line of the present defences. Since these defences are presently in reasonably good
condition and the coastline appears fairly stable it is not anticipated that any major action will be
required in the near future with the exception of the protection of the wind farm and landfill site. It
will also eventually be necessary to carry out maintenance on the defence structures and the
‘Hold the Line’ policy option is therefore considered to be more suitable. A study of the effects of
gravel extraction from the south of the harbour pier should be carried out in order to assess the
impact of these extractions on the coastline in this Unit.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
26
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 7 - SIDDICK TO RISEHOW

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes is not consistent with any of the
other objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is therefore not viable. The option
conflicts with the SMP coastal defence objective and the EA’s duties under the Water Resources
Act (1991) to provide satisfactory protection to the residential area of Flimby.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. The infrastructure in this Unit, such as
the railway line, road and residential areas, contributes greatly to the local and regional economy.
It is unlikely that the railway line will be re-routed further inland and it must therefore be protected.
This option will maintain flood defences which protect areas of population, agricultural land and
industrial facilities.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable. There is no advantage in this
option over holding the line and it would not be economically worthwhile.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option. The coastline is already very close to the railway line
and a managed retreat option is not possible without re-routing the line. This option does
therefore not meet the SMP coastal defence objective.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture, economic, infrastructure
and recreation and amenity interests.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
27
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 8 - RISEHOW TO MARYPORT HARBOUR

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes and natural environment is not
consistent with the other objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is therefore not
viable. Maryport Harbour and an industrial estate are important to the local economy and will not
be sufficiently protected by this option which would conflict with the SMP coastal defence
objective for this Unit.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. Hard defences are already present in this
Unit and new or repair works should be sensitive to the natural processes in order to minimise
their impact. This option is made economically worthwhile by preserving the harbour and
industrial areas which play important parts in the local economy.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet most of the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option. A managed retreat would not be economically viable
since important infrastructure already exists close to the coast and the SMP coastal defence
objective would not be met by this option.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture, economic, infrastructure
and recreation and amenity interests. As part of the coastal defence policy it is recommended
that a coast defence study is carried out for this Unit, including an assessment of the importance
of the harbour breakwaters.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
28
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 9 - NORTH MARYPORT

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes is not consistent with the other
objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is therefore not viable.

Hold the Line (Viable)
The option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. A sea wall fronts the entire coastline of
this unit. This wall must be maintained in order to protect the promenade and the north of
Maryport and comply with the SMP coastal defence objective and the Environment Agency’s
duties under the Water Resources Act (1991) to provide satisfactory flood protection to the
residential area of Maryport.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture, economic, infrastructure
and recreation and amenity interests.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
29
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 10 - MARYPORT TO DUBMILL POINT

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes is not consistent with the other
objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is therefore not viable. In particular it
conflicts with the coastal defence objective for this Unit which contains a number of important
environmental and geological features such as Swarthy Hill RIGS and the Saltpans. Another
important issue in this Unit is the preservation of the B5300 Maryport - Silloth coast road.
Damage to this road would negatively impact on the local and regional economy as well as
affecting recreation and amenity interests.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. The preservation of the coastal road and
the various environmentally or geologically important sites makes this option economically
worthwhile. It should however be noted that in order to preserve the landscape interests the
method of holding the line must be carefully chosen. Hard defences should be avoided and a
more sensitive approach is required to avoid negative impacts on the natural processes and
environment.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable. Advancing the shoreline by
using hard engineering methods would conflict with the natural environment interests in this Unit
and would have no advantage over holding the line.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option. The coast road is already very close to the erosion line
and managed retreat is therefore not viable. This option would be in conflict with the SMP
coastal defence objective.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture, economic, infrastructure
and recreation and amenity interests. As part of the coast defence policy it is recommended that
a detailed study of sediment movements is carried out in order to determine the best possible
method of defence.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
30
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 11 - DUBMILL POINT TO SILLOTH HARBOUR

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes and natural environment is not
consistent with the other objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is therefore not
viable. The option conflicts with the SMP coastal defence objective and the Environment
Agency’s duties under the Water Resources Act (1991) to provide satisfactory flood protection to
the residential area of Beckfoot. Silloth Dunes and Mawbray Banks are designated SSSI’s and
are of substantial importance as natural habitats which should be protected from erosion.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. The option is however only considered to
be acceptable within this Management Unit if any necessary maintenance of the coastline
involves only the use of soft engineering techniques such as dune management. Hard
engineering options are not acceptable since they would damage or destroy the Silloth and
Mawbray Banks SSSI. It is recommended that liaison takes place between the Environment
Agency, English Nature and the Solway Rural Initiative to determine the most appropriate
management measures.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option. Retreating the line would not only result in the
probable loss of the B5300 Silloth - Maryport coast road but is also likely to damage or destroy
the Silloth Dunes and Mawbray Banks SSSI’s.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture, economic, infrastructure
and recreation and amenity interests. As part of the policy option it is recommended that a
detailed study of sediment movements be carried out in order to determine the best possible
defence method.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
31
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 12 - SILLOTH HARBOUR TO SKINBURNESS BANK

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes and natural environment is not
consistent with the other objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is therefore not
viable The option conflicts with the coastal defence objective and the EA’s duties under the
Water Resources Act (1991) to provide satisfactory flood protection to the residential areas of
Silloth and Skinburness.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils most of the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit. It is compatible
with the adjacent units and is economically worthwhile. This Unit is already fronted by hard
defences and sensitive design of new or repair works will be required to minimise their impact on
the natural processes.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet the same specific objectives as holding the line it is
inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for the
same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option. Much of the infrastructure in this Unit, such as roads,
shops and residential properties are already located close to the shoreline and a policy of
managed retreat is therefore not viable.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture, economic, infrastructure
and recreation and amenity interests. Since the entire shoreline of the unit is already backed by
coastal defences it is anticipated that the coastal defence policy will be mainly in the form of
maintenance and repair works. As part of the coastal defence policy it is recommended that a
detailed study of sediment movements be carried out in order to determine the best possible
method of minimising the impacts of future work.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
32
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 13 - THE GRUNE

Do Nothing (Viable)
This option fulfils the majority of management objectives of the SMP within this
Management Unit and is the only option which is economically worthwhile. The area is of great
importance in terms of the landscape and natural environment and any defence policy which
interferes with these interests is likely to be undesirable.

Hold the Line (Rejected)
Although this option fulfils some of the objectives the SMP for this Management Unit it is not
compatible with the natural processes and is not economically worthwhile. Since the landscape
value of the coastline in this Unit is of great importance it is considered undesirable to construct
defences in this area and this option is therefore not viable.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and
is therefore not viable. As well as damaging the landscape and natural environment it is neither
compatible with the adjacent units nor the natural processes and is not economically worthwhile.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
Although this option is compatible with the adjacent units and the natural processes it is not
economically worthwhile and is likely to damage or destroy the landscape and agricultural value
of the unit. The construction of hard defences in particular is not viable.
Summary
Only the ‘Do Nothing’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is economically
justifiable and preserves the landscape, natural environment and recreation and amenity
interests. It is however recommended that a detailed study of sediment movements is carried out
in order to determine whether any future action, possibly in the form of soft defence methods,
would be appropriate.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Do Nothing’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
33
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 14 - SKINBURNESS CREEK TO RIVER WAMPOOL

Do Nothing (Viable)
Due to the present condition of the defences in this area and the fact that the coastline
appears reasonably stable this option is considered viable at present. However, it is
recommended that studies of saltmarsh erosion/accretion should be carried out in order to
assess whether a more active option would be better suited to this Unit in the future.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils the majority of the management objectives of the SMP within this
Management Unit. The option is however a long term defence policy and it is likely that in the
short term no actions will be necessary since the defences in this Unit are in reasonably good
condition and the coastline appears fairly stable.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet most of the specific objectives of the SMP for this
Management Unit it is inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option fulfils the same objectives as the “Do Nothing” option but is not considered to be
viable due to the negative effect it would have on the landscape, agriculture and infrastructure
issues. Retreating the line would be in conflict with the SMP coastal defence objective.
Summary
Both the ‘Do Nothing’ and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy options are appropriate in the short term.
However, the potential flood risk in the long term makes it more economically worthwhile to hold
the line of the present defences. Since these defences are presently in very good condition and
the coastline appears fairly stable it is not anticipated that any major action will be required in the
near future. It will however eventually be necessary to carry out maintenance on the defence
structures and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is therefore considered to be more suitable. A
program of saltmarsh accretion/erosion monitoring should be established as part of the defence
policy for this Unit in order to be able to anticipate when further works may be appropriate.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
34
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 15 - RIVER WAMPOOL TO CARDURNOCK

Do Nothing (Viable)
Due to the present condition of the defences in this area and the fact that the coastline
appears stable this option is considered viable at present. However, it is recommended that
studies of saltmarsh erosion/accretion should be carried out in order to assess whether a more
active option would be better suited to this Unit in the future. In addition to this it may be
necessary to assess the movements of the river channels since these movements may be
responsible for erosion of the banks. Flooding of the road and gardens close to the shoreline in
Anthorn has taken place in the past and this option is likely to be suitable only in the short term,
although no houses were found to be directly at risk.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils the majority of the management objectives of the SMP within this
Management Unit. The option is however a long term defence policy and it is likely that in the
short term no actions will be necessary since the defences in this Unit are in reasonably good
condition and the coastline appears fairly stable.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet most of the specific objectives of the SMP for this
Management Unit it is inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option fulfils the same objectives as the “Do Nothing” option but is not considered to be
viable due to the negative effect it would have on the landscape, agriculture and infrastructure
issues. Retreating the line would be in conflict with the SMP coastal defence objective.
Summary
Both the ‘Do Nothing’ and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy options are appropriate in the short term.
However, the potential flood risk in the long term makes it more economically worthwhile to hold
the line of the present defences. Since these defences are presently in reasonably good
condition and the coastline appears fairly stable it is not anticipated that any major action will be
required in the near future. It will however eventually be necessary to carry out maintenance on
the defence structures and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option therefore considered to be more
suitable. A program of saltmarsh accretion/erosion monitoring should be established as part of
the defence policy for this Unit in order to be able to anticipate when further works may be
appropriate.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be “Hold the Line” due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
35
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 16 - CARDURNOCK TO BOWNESS ON SOLWAY

Do Nothing (Viable)
Due to the fact that the coastline appears stable this option is considered viable at present.
However, it is recommended that studies of saltmarsh erosion/accretion should be carried out in
order to assess whether a more active option would be better suited to this Unit in the future.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils the majority of the management objectives of the SMP within this
Management Unit. The option is however a long term defence policy and it is likely that in the
short term no actions will be necessary since the coastline appears fairly stable. This Unit
contains a National Nature Reserve, RSPB site and a SSSI, as well as being part of the Solway
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This option is most likely to protect these
designations from being lost without seriously conflicting with the landscape, agriculture and
infrastructure interests within the unit.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet most of the specific objectives of the SMP for this
Management Unit it is inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option fulfils the same objectives as the “Do Nothing” option but is not considered to be
viable due to the negative effect it would have on the landscape, agriculture and infrastructure
issues. Retreating the line would be in conflict with the SMP coastal defence objective.
Summary
Both the ‘Do Nothing’ and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy options are appropriate in the short term.
However, the potential flood risk in the long term makes it more economically worthwhile to hold
the line of the present defences. Since the coastline appears fairly stable it is not anticipated that
any major action will be required in the near future. It may however eventually be necessary to
adopt a more active defence policy and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option therefore considered to
be more suitable. A program of saltmarsh accretion/erosion monitoring should be established as
part of the defence policy for this Unit in order to be able to anticipate when further works may be
appropriate.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be ‘Hold the Line’ due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
36
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 17 - BOWNESS ON SOLWAY TO DRUMBURGH

Do Nothing (Viable)
Due to the present condition of the defences in this area and the fact that the coastline
appears stable this option is considered viable at present. However, it is recommended that
studies of saltmarsh erosion/accretion should be carried out in order to assess whether a more
active option would be better suited to this Unit in the future.

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils the majority of the management objectives of the SMP within this
Management Unit. The option is however a long term defence policy and it is likely that in the
short term no actions will be necessary since the defences in this Unit are in reasonably good
condition and the coastline appears fairly stable. This option is made economically worthwhile by
protecting the village of Bowness on Solway as well as a variety of designations including a
National Nature Reserve, a SSSI and parts of the Hadrian Wall Linear Structure.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet most of the specific objectives of the SMP for this
Management Unit it is inconsistent with the general objectives and is therefore not viable.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option fulfils the same objectives as the ‘Do Nothing’ option but is not considered to be
viable due to the negative effect it would have on the landscape, agriculture, archaeology and
infrastructure issues. Retreating the line would be in conflict with the SMP coastal defence
objective.
Summary
Both the ‘Do Nothing’ and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy options are appropriate in the short term.
However, the potential flood risk in the long term makes it more economically worthwhile to hold
the line of the present defences. Since these defences are presently in reasonably good
condition and the coastline appears fairly stable it is not anticipated that any major action will be
required in the near future. It will however eventually be necessary to carry out maintenance on
the defence structures and the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option therefore considered to be more
suitable. A program of saltmarsh accretion/erosion monitoring should be established as part of
the defence policy for this Unit in order to be able to anticipate when further works may be
appropriate.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be “Hold the Line” due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
37
Bullen Consultants Limited
St Bees Head to River Sark Shoreline Management Plan
96M477/4Catlas
MANAGEMENT UNIT 18 - DRUMBURGH TO RIVER SARK

Do Nothing (Rejected)
This option, although compatible with the natural processes is not consistent with the other
objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit and is therefore not viable. The option conflicts
with the SMP coastal defence objective and the EA’s duties under the Water Resources Act
(1991) to provide satisfactory flood protection to residential areas (eg. Burgh by Sands).

Hold the Line (Viable)
This option fulfils the majority of the management objectives of the SMP within this Management
Unit. The defences are required to protect agricultural and residential areas as well as numerous
designations including Rockliffe Marsh Cumbria Wildlife Trust Reserve and Drumburgh Moss
SSSI.

Advance the Line (Rejected)
Although this option does meet some of the specific objectives of the SMP for this
Management Unit and is compatible with the natural processes it is not economically worthwhile
and would conflict with the natural environment and landscape interests. It is therefore not
considered a viable option.

Retreat the Line (Rejected)
This option is not compatible with the objectives of the SMP for this Management Unit for
the same reasons as the ‘Do Nothing’ option.
Summary
Only the ‘Hold the Line’ policy option is appropriate for this Management Unit as it is
economically justifiable and preserves the coastal defence, agriculture and natural environment
interests. A program of saltmarsh accretion/erosion monitoring should be established as part of
the defence policy for this Unit in order to be able to anticipate when further works may be
appropriate.
Comparison Matrix
PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred Coastal Defence Policy Option is considered to be “Hold the Line” due to it being
financially sustainable and more compatible with the key Management Objectives than the other
options.
38
Bullen Consultants Limited