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

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the Director of Environment be instructed to write to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

(i) giving the County Council's support for the preparation of a single Shoreline Management Plan for the whole Solent, subject to adequate local consultation arrangements; and

(ii) emphasising the need for a programme of consultation to raise public awareness and understanding of the long term effects of climate change on the coastline, and of the associated issues of biodiversity conservation and the need to respond and adapt to change.

2. Reason

2.1 This decision supports Aim 2 (Stewardship of the environment) and Aim 4 (Building strong and safe communities) of the Corporate Strategy by promoting a sustainable and cost-effective approach to coastal defence planning through dialogue with local communities.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Taking no action.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member Consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: ..................................... Date: ...................................

Councillor T K Thornber

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

1. Summary

1.1 Cabinet Members may be aware of the Review of the Effects of Climate Change on the County Council's Coastal Interests (subsequently referred to as `the Review'), the findings of which were presented and discussed at a Members' seminar on 31 October 2003 and then reported to various Policy Review Committees. On 8 April 2004 the Executive Member for Policy and Resources approved the courses of action set out in the report, and asked for a report to Cabinet on the relationship between the Review of Shoreline Management Plans and the County Council's landholding interests on the coast, to include specific reference to public consultation and long term funding arrangements. This report fulfils that request.

2. The Review

2.1 The County Council is a major landowner on the coast, with nearly 30 landholdings totalling around 1,800 hectares (4,400 acres) and nearly 28 kilometres (17 miles) of shoreline. These sites include three country parks and nine nature reserves, and almost 1,000 hectares of land of European importance for nature conservation. Whilst this portfolio of coastal landholdings is envied as probably the most extensive and varied of any local authority in the country, it does bring important responsibilities in dealing with the effects of the sea and in complying with European nature conservation legislation. The County Council also has responsibility for managing highways and rights of way, some of which are on the coast.

2.2 The Review looked at the effects of natural processes such as erosion and flooding on the County Council's landholdings, highways and rights of way - as exacerbated by climate change-related factors such as sea level rise - and considered the implications for the County Council's services and facilities of current and emerging coastal defence policies and of the application of the Habitats Regulations 1994 (which transpose into UK law the European Birds and Habitats Directives).

2.3 The report to Members identified 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. It was agreed that working groups be set up for the key sites or areas, in order to find creative solutions that allow the County Council's services to be maintained satisfactorily whilst providing a more sustainable approach to coastal defence. The deliberations of these working groups are to be the subject of consultation with affected interests, such as local residents, user groups and environmental organisations, as well as statutory authorities and agencies. Local Members will be involved. Two working groups have been set up: Lepe to Calshot; and West Hayling (including the Hayling Billy Coastal Path). Groups for Lymington-Keyhaven Nature Reserve, Royal Victoria Country Park, Bunny Meadows and Hook Nature Reserve, and Titchfield Haven are to be running by the end of the year.

2.4 With regard to West Hayling, it is already apparent from correspondence from local residents, user groups and the local MP that there is growing concern about the perceived threat to the future of the Hayling Billy Coastal Path, and considerable hostility towards English Nature for what is considered to be overly strict application of the Habitats Regulations. The County Council is in a difficult position, balancing the need to maintain an important and popular leisure facility and with meeting its duty to comply with the Habitats Regulations. It is essential that these issues are handled carefully and sensitively, and engage stakeholders in a meaningful way.

2.5 The response to consultation on the Review and the October 2003 seminar highlighted the important point that, although the County Council is to be greatly commended for being proactive in carrying out the Review, the debate must widen to consider the whole of the Hampshire coastline (not just the interests of the County Council). This wider debate must be conducted in partnership with other authorities and agencies and must engage many other stakeholders, indeed it ought to involve the general public. Discussions with others reinforces the view that the best vehicle for this wider debate would be the second round of shoreline management plans, which is expected to commence shortly.

3. Shoreline Management Plans

3.1 Shoreline management plans (SMPs) provide the strategic framework for coastal defence planning in England and Wales. They are non-statutory plans prepared by the coastal defence operating authorities (district councils and the Environment Agency) in consultation with county councils, English Nature and others. The Hampshire coast is covered by three SMPs:

(i) Poole and Christchurch Bays SMP (from Poole Harbour to Hurst Spit);

(ii) Western Solent and Southampton Water SMP (from Hurst Spit to the River Hamble); and

(iii) East Solent SMP (from the River Hamble to Pagham Harbour).

3.2 These SMPs are to be replaced by `second round' SMPs within the next two or three years. A national review of the first round of SMPs criticised them for a number of shortcomings, including inadequate consultation and their failure to address properly the implications of the Habitats Regulations. These shortcomings should be avoided next time because of new Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) guidance and major studies (such as Future Coast, and Coastal Habitat Management Plans). On the Hampshire coast there is no doubt that the County Council's Review will provide a valuable input to SMP preparation, too.

3.3 Consideration is being given to whether to produce one SMP for the whole Solent, including the Isle of Wight, rather than separate ones for the first round SMP areas. Not only would an all-embracing SMP be more cost-effective to produce, it also would reflect the fact that the Solent is a single ecosystem with similar habitats and issues around the system. It would complement the single Scheme of Management recently produced for all the wildlife sites of European importance around the Solent. The only significant concern about preparing one SMP for the whole Solent is the difficulty in consulting affected interests adequately over such an extensive and geographically fragmented area. It will be vital to ensure that effective arrangements are made for local consultation at all key stages in the process, starting with raising awareness and understanding of the drivers for change and of the issues. With its experience and expertise in consultation, the County Council is well placed to assist.

3.4 The Environment Agency and most of the district councils are pressing DEFRA to support and fund a single SMP for the whole Solent. It is recommended that the County Council writes to DEFRA in support, whilst emphasising the need for adequate arrangements to be put in place for effective local consultation.

4. Funding Arrangements

4.1 The suggested approach puts the emphasis on the second round of SMPs for addressing and resolving long term coastal defence planning issues, including addressing the implications of the Habitats Regulations, in a strategic and coordinated way, whilst ensuring adequate consultation at local level. One of the main advantages of this approach is that, if it receives DEFRA's support, it will be funded almost entirely by Government. Although the County Council will be required to make a financial contribution under the Coast Protection Act 1949, the contribution will be credited back the following year, as for the first round of SMPs.

4.2 There may be some costs associated with the follow-up work on the Review, such as the provision of information and holding meetings in connection with the key area working groups. It is anticipated that any such expenditure in the current financial year will be met from existing budgets.

Recommendation

That the Director of Environment be instructed to write to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

(i) giving the County Council's support for the preparation of a single Shoreline Management Plan for the whole Solent, subject to adequate local consultation arrangements; and

(ii) emphasising the need for a programme of consultation to raise public awareness and understanding of the long term effects of climate change on the coastline, and of the associated issues of biodiversity conservation and the need to respond and adapt to change.

8815/AI