Hampshire County Council Policy and Resources Policy Review Committee 25 March 2004 Review of the Effects of Climate Change on the County Council's Coastal Interests Report of the Director of Environment, Director of Property, Business and Regulatory Services and Director of Recreation and Heritage

Item 11

Contacts: Alan Inder, ext 6759 email: [email protected]

Ian Parker, ext 7269 email: [email protected]

John Tickle, ext 6000 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report details the outcome of the first round of consultations on the Review of the Effects of Climate Change on the County Council's Coastal Interests.

1.2 It considers recommendations arising from the Review and describes appropriate courses of action for the County Council that will guide future management decisions and, for some parts of the coastline, will involve further consultation with local Members, tenants, adjoining landowners, and users of the County Council's country parks, nature reserves, activity centres, open spaces and rights of way. This report was also considered by the Environment Policy Review Committee on 3 March and the Recreation and Heritage Policy Review Committee on 11 March. The Policy Review Committees are requested to support these courses of action, prior to formal decision by the Executive Member for Policy and Resources on 8 April.

1.3 This report supports Aim 2 of the Corporate Strategy (Stewardship of the environment) by finding creative solutions that allow the County Council's services to be maintained satisfactorily, whilst providing a more sustainable approach to coastal defence.

2. Background

2.1 The County Council owns and manages nearly 30 coastal landholdings, which include three Country Parks, nine Nature Reserves, highways, rights of way and three waste disposal sites, as identified on the attached plan. These total more than 1,800 hectares in area with a total length of coastline of 28 kilometres (17 miles).

2.2 Coastal landowners are constantly engaged in dealing with the effects of the sea, and there are growing concerns about the effects of climate change leading to rising sea levels and increased number of storms. These effects are expected to worsen - for example, extreme sea levels are predicted to rise about 84 centimetres by 2080. The consequences of these effects are an increasing risk of erosion and flooding, with increasing expenditure on coastal defences required to be effective. The County Council, as landowner, has experienced these effects in recent years but they have been manageable so far.

2.3 The current coastal defence policy has protected the integrity of the County Council's landholdings and important recreational routes, but has been increasingly in conflict with landscape and nature conservation interests and the aims of the European Habitats Directive. This Directive has been transposed into UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 (commonly known as the Habitats Regulations). Such conflicts are particularly evident in Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) - sites of European Importance for Nature Conservation - which are extensively designated along the Hampshire coast.

2.4 Whilst the effects on the County Council's coastal landholdings have to date been manageable it is apparent that, if current trends continue, it will not be sustainable to maintain coastal defence of all areas for environmental and financial reasons. Significantly, the interpretation and implementation of the European Habitats Directive will limit the County Council's opportunities to defend its coastline in many circumstances in the future.

2.5 The proposed second round of consultations is intended to stimulate awareness and discussion among the various interest groups and statutory bodies involved. The objective will be to agree on management arrangements which reasonably balance what are often conflicting requirements, such as maintaining shoreline routes versus nature conservation objectives.

3. The Scope of the Review

3.1 In order to inform future decisions on the management of its coastal land, a Review of the Effects of Climate Change on the County Council's coastal landholdings has been carried out. The main objectives of the review were to produce:

(i) an inventory of the County Council's coastal landholdings, highways and rights of way;

(ii) information on coastal defence planning, the legislative context (including the Habitats Regulations) and influential factors such as climate change;

(iii) information on the County Council's coastal defences, and the natural processes and shoreline management policies affecting them; and

(iv) an assessment of the implications of current policies for the County Council's services and facilities.

3.2 The Review was carried out in close consultation with the coastal defence operating authorities (the district councils and the Environment Agency), English Nature, and all relevant County Council departments.

3.3 The Review's conclusions and recommendations, as set out in Section 5 of its Summary report, are reproduced in the attached appendix.

4. Consultation

4.1 Early in September 2003 consultation on the Review commenced when the draft main and summary reports were circulated to the local and harbour authorities, the Environment Agency, English Nature and a number of other authorities and agencies with an interest. Comments were invited by mid-November.

4.2 As the focal point of this consultation, a seminar was held on 31 October to brief county councillors and senior managers on the findings of the Review. Speakers from district councils, the Environment Agency, English Nature and the leading coastal consultants, Halcrow, as well as prominent academics, explained the changing wider context within which the Review must be considered. Nearly 100 delegates attended the seminar, including 16 county councillors.

4.3 By the close of the consultation period, comments had been received from English Nature, most of the local authorities and other key consultees. The general response has been as follows:

(i) to welcome the Review, and commend the County Council for its open and transparent approach to considering the coastal defence issues affecting its interests;

(ii) to reinforce the need for a less prescriptive and more adaptive approach to coastal defence, especially in rural areas where the vast majority of the County Council's landholdings are situated - essentially this would require more detailed monitoring before commitments are made to manage in a particular manner; and

(iii) to welcome the County Council's proposals to work in partnership with others to tackle major coastal issues such as meeting the needs of the European Habitats Directive, in particular the requirements for compensation habitat.

5. Outcomes of the Review

5.1 The conclusions and recommendations of the Consultation Draft of the Review are set out in the attached appendix. Following the initial consultations on the draft report, it is proposed that the following actions should be approved.

Adoption of Coastal Defence Policy to `Do Nothing' or `Managed Retreat' on Selected Sites

5.2 There are sites included in the review, such as Hurst Spit, where any move away from the current policy of defending the coastline could have major implications for the protection of people and property and so continued defence is required.

5.3 However, there are a limited number of coastal landholdings for which a change in policy could be recommended in order to achieve a more sustainable approach to shoreline management. These are as follows:

(i) subject to `do nothing' - Hackett's Marsh (River Hamble), Chilling and Brownwich, The Kench and Gutner Point (Hayling Island); and

(ii) possible `managed retreat' - Mercury Marshes (River Hamble), Wicor (Fareham) and Northney (Hayling Island).

5.4 The land at Chilling and Brownwich and Wicor form part of the County Farms Estate and is subject to agricultural tenancies. All of the other land listed above is held for recreational purposes and is either low lying or inter-tidal. The land at Chilling and Brownwich has been subject to relatively slow but ongoing erosion of its shoreline cliff face. The cliff top provides a part of the route of the well used Solent Way footpath, which it has been possible to realign as erosion has occurred. If the shoreline erosion continues and if the `do nothing' policy is adopted, it is expected that there will be a manageable loss of land, which will not affect the viability of the farm holding nor integrity of the Solent Way and would have only a nominal financial impact on the County Council.

5.5 The managed retreat policy on the land at Wicor would change the agricultural use of this land but again would result in only a marginal financial loss to the County Council.

5.6 However, there are other sites where any move away from defending the coastline would affect the County Council's delivery of its services, especially in providing for access, recreation and nature conservation. These sites include Lymington-Keyhaven Nature Reserve; Lepe Country Park; Royal Victoria Country Park; Bunny Meadows and Hook Nature Reserve; Titchfield Haven National Nature Reserve and Hayling Billy Coastal Path. It is advisable that the implications for these sites be examined in more depth through working groups involving users and local county members, co-opting advisers from external authorities and agencies as appropriate, with a view to finding creative solutions that allow the County Council's services to be maintained satisfactorily whilst providing a more sustainable approach to coastal defence. The resulting proposals would be the subject of the proposed consultation referred to in paragraphs 5.13 and 5.14.

Study of the County Council's Requirements for Compensation Habitat

5.7 Work is already well under way on a study to assess the County Council's likely requirement to provide compensation habitat (as a result of maintaining or improving coastal defences to protect its landholdings, highways or other interests) under the European Habitats Directive. This study will also assess the availability of suitable sites within the County Council's portfolio of landholdings to meet the identified requirement for compensation for the loss of inter-tidal habitat.

5.8 The outcome of the study will inform the County Council's formal response to a request from the Environment Agency to use land owned by the County Council at Stoke Common, Hayling Island, as compensation habitat; the requirement for which arises from the Agency's scheme to improve the sea defences at Selsmore/Mengham on Hayling Island. To date, the Environment Agency has failed to identify suitable compensatory habitats to meet the strict requirements of English Nature under the European Habitats Directive. However, it was announced recently that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is likely to give special dispensation in this case to allow the Selsmore/Mengham sea defence scheme to proceed in advance of securing suitable compensation habitat; nevertheless, whilst lessening the urgency, the need to find secure compensation habitat still remains.

Support the `Opportunities for the Restoration of a Natural Coastline' Initiative

5.9 The Environment Agency, English Nature and New Forest District Council are preparing a project proposal for submission to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for funding, with the aims of predicting the compensation habitat requirements that will result from continuation of current coastal defence policies and of finding feasible opportunities for meeting those requirements.

5.10 One of the later phases of this project will explore the feasibility of creating a strategic coastal land banking scheme to enable the release of land for the creation of additional inter-tidal habitat in compensation for new sea defences and/or development of the coast which prevents the creation of new habitat through natural processes. At that time, Members will need to give formal consideration to the role that the County Council might play in such a scheme.

Input the Review Reports to the Shoreline Management Planning Process

5.11 The operating authorities are expected to start work on the next round of Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) in 2004. Due to the Review and the follow-up work, the County Council is well placed to make a strong input to the SMP process.

Site Monitoring

5.12 Given the nature of the problems affecting the County Council's coastal landholdings, it will be important for future policy decisions to be made against reliable and up-to-date information on changes to the Hampshire coastline. The use of an adaptive style of future shoreline management has been advocated in the review and by consultees, and will require effective information and monitoring in order to provide a sound understanding of the natural coastal processes affecting the County Council's landholdings and other interests. It is therefore proposed that a monitoring programme be drawn up for the main sites, especially those sites for which the Review implications need to be assessed more thoroughly. Although some future monitoring is likely to be funded through work on the Shoreline Management Plans and Coastal Defence Strategies, other aspects may need to be funded directly by the County Council. A proposal for monitoring work will be included in the Coastal Capital Programme for 2004/05.

Further Consultation

5.13 The consultation to date has aimed at establishing a suitable policy framework within which local management decisions may be made. It will now be important that a further round of consultation is held which focuses on local ownership and operational issues, notably public access.

5.14 If the current trends continue into the future, the effects of climate change on the coast of Hampshire will become increasingly important. In the short term, the effects are expected to be marginal. However, in the medium to long-term, the erosion, storm damage and flooding will present major challenges to the management of both rural and urban areas. To date, consultation has mainly involved agencies, groups and individuals with particular interests in the coast and environment. It will be important for there to be a wider debate and greater understanding of the issues affecting Hampshire's coast in the future. As a first stage it is proposed that the above should be the subject of widespread consultation with local Members, tenants, adjoining landowners and users of the County Council's landholdings before final management proposals are formulated.

Recommendation

That this Committee advises that the Executive Member for Policy and Resources supports the courses of action outlined in Section 5 to assist the County Council in balancing the need to maintain services and facilities with the need to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats Regulations.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.
NB the list excludes:
1.	Published works.
2.	Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE	LOCATION
`Review of the Effects of Climate Change on Hampshire County Council's Coastal Landholdings' Main and Summary Reports (September 2003) Report to Informal Cabinet 8 December 2003	Environment Department

8705/AI/IP/JT

APPENDIX

REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL'S COASTAL LANDHOLDINGS

CONSULTATION DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2003

EXTRACT FROM SUMMARY REPORT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The County Council's Coastal Interests

The County Council owns and manages nearly 30 sites on the Hampshire coast, including Country Parks, Nature Reserves and parts of the County Farms Estate. These coastal landholdings total more than 1,800 hectares (4,450 acres) and at least 28 kilometres (17 miles) of shoreline. Many of these landholdings are within or adjacent to sites of international importance for nature conservation. The County Council is also responsible for highways, rights of ways and waste disposal sites that are on the coastline.

The County Council has become increasingly concerned about the effects of the sea on its landholdings and other interests, effects that are likely to worsen due to climate change. The authority has spent considerable amounts of money on defending its coastal interests and, if past policies were to continue, it would be reasonable to expect the rate of such expenditure to increase. This Review is, therefore, timely.

Background

The Review has taken place in a context that is changing in significant ways. Firstly, there is a more strategic, coordinated long-term approach to coastal defence planning, that is evident in organisational changes and the emergence of shoreline management plans and coastal defence strategies. Secondly, the growing recognition of the importance of the environment, especially the significance of natural coastal processes and of nature conservation interests, has brought the more traditional engineering approach to coastal defences into conflict with conservation policies. In particular, the designation of sites of European importance for nature conservation - Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) - and the implications of the accompanying legislation, as enacted through the Habitats Regulations 1994, is having a profound effect on coastal defence policies. There is a marked shift away from hard towards `soft' engineering (eg beach replenishment) and even towards abandonment of defences or retreat to an inland line (which can bring opportunities for habitat creation).

Review of Coastal Defence Policies for County Council Landholdings

The main thrust of the Review has been to examine the appropriateness of the `official' coastal defence policies (as expressed in shoreline management plans and coastal defence strategies) for all the County Council's landholdings and other interests, in the light of the changing context outlined above and of other factors, such as the County Council's wider policies for conservation, recreation and land management. The results of this part of the Review are summarised in Table 2, and the main conclusions are as follows.

Western Solent (Hurst Spit to Calshot)

The County Council has some very important interests on this coastline, including Hurst Spit, Lymington-Keyhaven Coastal Nature Reserve, Lepe Country Park and Calshot Activities Centre. The review has concluded that, in general, the SMP policies for this section should be acceptable to the County Council. However, the West Solent Coastal Defence Strategy (WSCDS) has recently commenced, led by New Forest District Council, and this will examine the practical application of the SMP policies and might result in changes. Therefore, it will be important for the County Council to be involved in the preparation of the WSCDS from an early stage.

For this section of coastline the more specific conclusions are:

_ It is vital that adequate plans for the long-term maintenance of Hurst Spit are not only in place but fully implemented.

_ The effects of the long-term maintenance of the sea wall between Lymington and Keyhaven need to be assessed and a response strategy agreed.

_ The maintenance of the hard defences along the Lepe Country Park frontage may no longer be acceptable environmentally, and the County Council should discuss and agree with Cadland Estate and the operating authorities a more sustainable policy.

_ Any further coastal defence works at Calshot Spit (including the repairs to the north quay wall currently proposed) should be deferred for consideration in the WSCDS.

_ The potential for habitat creation at Tom Tiddlers Ground (SW of Calshot Marshes) should be fully investigated.

Southampton Water (East) and the River Hamble

For this section of coastline the specific conclusions are:

_ The operating authorities should be encouraged to carry out a contingency valuation study for Royal Victoria Country Park (and for West Wood) to determine whether the current `hold the line' policy is sustainable in the long term.

_ The past policy of protecting from erosion any vulnerable sections of the Manor Farm Country Park shoreline should be discontinued.

_ A long term solution for Bunny Meadows should be sought and implemented that will maintain the riverside footpath and improve the nature conservation value of the area between the path and the high water mark.

Hook to Gilkicker

For this section of coastline the specific conclusions are:

_ At Hook-with-Warsash Nature Reserve, whilst supporting the `hold the line' policy in the short term, investigate the `do nothing' option for the sea wall which in the long term would revert Hook Lake to a small estuary.

_ At Brownwich and Chilling take action to set back the cliff top path where erosion occurs, and change any land drainage systems that are exacerbating cliff problems.

_ Whilst supporting the policy to maintain existing defences in the short term, investigate the hydrological and ecological effects of removing the sluice under the highway between Titchfield Haven Nature Reserve and Hill Head Harbour.

Portsmouth Harbour

For this section of coastline the specific conclusions are:

_ Whilst supporting the `hold the line' policy in the short term, investigate the effects of changing the policy at Fareham Estate to `do nothing' and at Wicor to managed retreat in the long term.

Hayling Island

For this section of coastline the specific conclusions are:

_ For the northern end of the Hayling Billy Coastal Path assess the feasibility of a strategy to protect the landfill site; re-route the link path across the recently acquired grassland; remove the sea wall protecting the link path to allow habitat creation; and remove the concrete blocks from alongside the Hayling Billy.

_ Assess the feasibility of retreating the path or bridging at likely erosion points on the Hayling Billy Coastal Path (middle section).

_ Assess the feasibility of minor habitat creation schemes at Gutner (north field) and Northney.

General Conclusions and Recommendations

There are some coastal landholdings that the County Council has defended in the past, where it may no longer be justifiable in economic or environmental terms to do so. Furthermore, to continue to defend would run counter to current or emerging coastal defence policy and would bring the authority into conflict with the Environment Agency, English Nature and the district councils. By moving away from a `hold the line' policy to either `do nothing' or even consider managed retreat, the authority will avoid future expenditure on coast protection works to some of its land. However, these savings would be offset by the reductions in the value of the County Council's coastal landholdings and to some extent by the need to do additional monitoring and to carry out more detailed studies to assess the practicalities of applying different policies.

Where the policy is to `hold the line' there are other difficult issues to consider, particularly where implementation of the policy would adversely affect a European wildlife site (SPA or SAC) leading to the need to provide compensation habitat. The experience of the Environment Agency over the past two years (in trying to find suitable habitat to compensate for predicted losses associated with their scheme to improve the Selsmore/Mengham sea defences on Hayling Island) suggests that the availability of suitable sites on the Hampshire coast for compensation habitat is limited. This is an issue that the County Council needs to address urgently, initially by undertaking a study to assess the Authority's own potential requirements to provide compensation habitat in the foreseeable future, as a result of defending its interests on the coast. The study should include an assessment of the opportunities for the County Council to meet its foreseeable compensation habitat requirements from its own current portfolio of landholdings.

It must also be recognised that this is a much wider issue, which increasingly over the next few years will affect not only the Environment Agency and the County Council but other local authorities and possibly harbour authorities, and also private sector organisations such as Associated British Ports. This is because most of the Hampshire coast (a) is built up, and protected from the sea; (b) is subject to `hold the line' policies in shoreline management plans; (c) is designated as being of European importance for nature conservation - ie designated SPA and/or SAC; and (d) appears to offer relatively few realistic opportunities for suitable compensation habitat.

The consequences of this combination of factors are:

· Implementation of `hold the line' will, in many situations, result in the need for compensation habitat;

· There will be great difficulties in meeting the need for compensation habitat because of the lack of suitable and available sites.

This issue is probably the greatest facing many organisations involved in the planning and management of the Hampshire coast over the next decade or two. It is an issue that must be addressed strategically and jointly by the main affected organisations. English Nature and the Environment Agency are taking the initiative in putting together a proposal - in consultation with the County Council, Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC) and others - for a project to address the problem (the current title of the project is `Opportunities for the Restoration of a Natural Coastline in the Solent'). A bid is being made to DEFRA for funding. It will be important for the County Council to be involved in this project, not only because of any requirements for compensation habitat the Authority might have but also because of the opportunities that the County Council's extensive portfolio of coastal landholdings might provide. Indeed, the project might lead to the setting up of a strategic `land banking' scheme to help to resolve the compensation habitat issue in the medium- to long-term, and the County Council might be regarded as the most appropriate authority to operate such a scheme.

Finally, this Review is nearing completion at an opportune time, as preparations are being made to embark on the second round of shoreline management plans (SMPs). The Review provides a comprehensive appraisal of current SMPs as they affect the County Council's interests, and it has had regard to important studies that have been carried out recently, such as the Solent Coastal Habitats Management Plan (CHaMP). Therefore, it should be submitted to the operating authorities not just for consultation but also as a position statement, on behalf of the County Council, to be taken into account in the preparation of the new SMPs. Involvement in the SMP process will also help the County Council to address some of the medium- to long-term issues that this Review has been unable to address because of the lack of available information.

Recommendations

Having regard to the foregoing conclusions, it is recommended that the County Council:

1. Accepts a change from a `hold the line' policy to `do nothing' or `retreat' where recommended in the sites summary above, subject to its corporate responsibilities being met (including safeguarding the County Council's legal obligations to third party interests on its land).

2. Carries out a study to assess the Authority's likely requirement to provide compensation habitat (as a result of maintaining or improving coastal defences to protect its landholdings, highways or other interests) and the availability of suitable sites within the County Council's portfolio of landholdings to meet the identified requirement.

3. Supports the `Opportunities for the Restoration of a Natural Coastline' initiative that is being promoted by English Nature and the Environment Agency, and gives consideration to the potential role the County Council might play in operating a strategic land banking scheme.

4. Submits these Review reports to the coastal defence authorities (the district councils and the Environment Agency) and English Nature for consideration when preparing the new shoreline management plans for the Hampshire coast.

Table Two

Hampshire County Council Coastal Landholdings at Risk from Flooding - Summary Table

	NAME	EPIS REF.	AREA (HA)	SEMS (HA)	% SEMS of AREA	SHORELINE FRONTAGE (M)	HIGHWAY /ROW ON SHORELINE	STATUTORY DESIGNATIONS	SMP UNIT NO./REF.	SMP/CDS POLICY	REVIEW RECOMMENDATION
1	Hurst Spit	4364	10	10	100%	3400	RoW	SSSI/SPA/ cSAC	BAR6/ LYM1/LYM2	HTL	Support rigorous implementation
2	Lymington-Keyhaven Marshes (INC. Efford Tip)	3483 7375 7496 7498 7499 9494	261	261	100%	6600	RoW on sea wall and across marshes	SSSI/SPA Adj.cSAC	LYM 2 (+ small part LYM 3)	HTL	Support. Assess effects on intertidal
3	Lepe Country Park	1469 1469 3458 3486 7420 9339	70	48	69%	3600	Exbury-Lepe road & Access from B3053 at Calshot	Partly in cSAC and SSSI/SPA	LYM 10 and 12 (+ part LYM 11)	HTL (by beach recharge)	Support. Agree works through WSCDS.
4	Calshot Activities Centre	3459	31	31	100%	2000	Access from B3053 at Calshot	Below HWM is in SSSI/SPA	LYM 14	HTL	Agree implementation through WSCDS.
5	Calshot Marshes LNR	7467	49	49	100%	1200	-	SSSI/SPA/ cSAC	FAW 1 and 2	HTL	Investigate habitat creation on adj. land to west.
6	West Wood	7244 7245 7246 7487	33	0	0%	0	Access from Weston-Netley road. RoW.	-	NET 1	HTL (short term); CVS for long-term	Support; encourage OA to do CVS
7	Royal Victoria Country Park	7897	64	0	0%	969	Access from Netley	SSSI/SPA (Intertidal land)	NET 3	HTL (short term); CVS for long-term	Support; encourage OA to do CVS
8	Hamble River	5042	246	218	89%	N/a	-	cSAC; also SSSI/SPA to LWM	HAM 1 to HAM 8	various	See Individual Sites
9	Mercury Marshes	7456	6	6	100%	400	-	cSAC/SSSI/ SPA	HAM 2	RLD	Support
10	Hacketts Marsh	4119 4805	20	13	65%	500	RoW on W. boundary	cSAC/SSSI/ SPA	HAM 3	Do nothing	Support
11	Manor Farm Country Park	7433 9517 9520	160	8	5%	1600	RoW.	Below HWM is SSSI/SPA/ cSAC	Not covered by SMP or CDS	-	Do nothing
12	Bunny Meadows	7432 7435 7448	32	17	53%	1400	RoW	SSSI/SPA/ cSAC	Mostly HAM7; also HAM8	Do nothing	Investigate feasibility of bridging of culverts
13	Strawberry Field	4118	4	0	0%	240	RoW	-	HAM 8	HTL	Do nothing
14	Hook-with-Warsash LNR	2486 7449 7457 7461 9555 3603	146	138	95%	2800	RoW (Solent Way)	Mostly SSSI/SPA, partly cSAC	Unit 14	HTL	Investigate `do nothing' option
15	Brownwich & Chilling	7955 79587486 7702	401	0	0%	2400	RoW (Solent Way)	Adj. SSSI/SPA (foreshore)	Unit 13	Do nothing	Support, but HCC action to realign RoW and repair gullies
16	Titchfield Haven NNR and Meon Marsh	7428 9505 7893 2473 8298 2476	164	142	87%	1000	Access from Meon-Hill Head road / RoW	SSSI/SPA/NNR	Unit 13	Do nothing	Maintain Meon Shore wall. Investigate costs/ benefits of removing tidal sluice

17	Hill Head Harbour	2477	2	1	50%	500	Meon-Hill Head road	SSSI/SPA	Unit 13	Maintain existing defences	Support
18	Browndown	8324	7	0	0%	0	-	Adj.SSSI	Unit 12	HTL	Support
19	Fort Gilkicker	7894	1	0	0%	100	-	Close to Lagoons cSAC	Junction of units 10 and 11	HTL	Support
20	Fareham Estate	4066	9	0	0%	50	RoW	Close to SSSI/SPA (foreshore)	Harbour	HTL	Consider `do nothing'
21	Wicor	2292	9	0	0%	400	RoW	Adj. SSSI/SPA (foreshore)	Harbour	HTL (consider RLD in long term)	Support
22	Castle Shore Park	2291	4	0	0%	250	RoW	Adj. SSSI/SPA (foreshore)	Harbour	HTL	Support
23	Hayling Billy (north)	7470(30%) 6520 10181 9636 3953	16	6	38%	2000	-	Part SSSI/SPA. Adj.cSAC.	Mostly Cell J, partly Cell H.	Partly HTL, partly `do nothing'	Support. Pursue strategy of partial retreat and path realignment. Habitat creation.
24	Hayling Billy (south)	7470 (70%) 7907	27	4	15%	2000	-	West of Path is SSSI/SPA. Adj.cSAC.	Mostly Cell K, partly Cell J	Do nothing	Support. Consider bridging erosion points.
25	The Kench	2926	6	6	100%	400	Access from Road	SSSI/SPA/ cSAC	Cell O	Do nothing	Support
26	Sandy Point LNR	2925	18	18	100%	700	-	SSSI/SPA Adj. cSAC	Cell Q3	HTL (in CDS)	Support
27	Gutner Point LNR	7908	65	63	97%	1100	-	Mostly SSSI/SPA/cSAC	Cells E and F	Do nothing	Support. Assess feasibility of habitat creation
28	Northney	5039	1	0	0%	50	Access from Road	-	Cell H	RLD	Support. Assess feasibility of habitat creation
	TOTAL		1862	1039	56%	35659

Notes/Abbreviations

EPIS = Estates Practice Information System

SEMS Solent European Marine Sites

ROW Right of Way

HWM High Water Mark

LWM Low Water Mark

Designations Coastal Defence

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SMP Shoreline Management Plan

SPA Special Protection Area CDS Coastal Defence Strategy

SAC Special Area of Conservation HTL Hold the Line

LNR Local Nature Reserve CVS Contingency Valuation Study

NNR National Nature Reserve RLD Retreated Line of Defence

SINC Site of Interest for Nature Conservation OA Operating Authorities

WSCDS West Solent Coastal Defence Strategy