BOROUGH OF POOLE

ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW GROUP

THE MEETING WAS HELD ON 28TH OCTOBER 2003

The Meeting commenced at 7.00 p.m. and concluded at 9.40 p.m.

Present:

Councillor Collier (Chairman)

Councillor Gregory (Vice Chairman)

CouncillorsAdams (substitute for Councillor Gillard), Curtis, Mrs Hives, MrsLavender, Pethen, Sorton and Trent.

Also Attending:

Councillors Knight, Leverett and White

Members of the Public Present: 19

  1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gillard.

  1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Collier declared a personal interest in M.4 as a Member of the Avon and Dorset Flood Defence Committee and in respect of M.5 as a licensed diver.

  1. INTRODUCTION TO COAST PROTECTION AND LAND DRAINAGE ISSUES

The Head of Leisure Services gave a short presentation to Members on issues with regard to Coast Protection and Land Drainage on the Coastline. He emphasised that the Land Drainage Act 1991 gave permissive powers to undertake work and the main aim was to protect property (homes and not gardens) and to protect livestock. This was funded by DEFRA via Local Authorities or the Environment Agency. A grant of 45% was usually given, the remainder being by SCA. Recent examples undertaken were Green Gardens, Town Quay Sea Wall.

He stated that an analysis of flood risk areas had been identified and areas of Hamworthy and the Old Town were considered to be at risk. The Old Town would be addressed during the proposed redevelopment, but Hamworthy was the subject of an Environment Agency Study.

Turning to coast protection issues, he stated that as with land drainage, coast protection was contained in the Coast Protection Act 1949 which gave the Council permissive powers to undertake work to protect the national infrastructure and lifestyle. He emphasised the current problems which were:

  • Poole Bay was still evolving
  • Humans now lived close to the coastline
  • Historic construction
  • Interruption of sand supply.

He stated that all applications for work were assessed by DEFRA using the following criteria:

  • Economic
  • Environmental
  • Sustainability
  • Technical viability

AGREED: that the presentation be noted.

FOR: Unanimous.

  1. HAMWORTHY PARK SEA DEFENCES

The Head of Leisure Services presented a report advising Members of the issues around the proposals from the Environment Agency for sea defence work in and around Hamworthy Park. He stated this was one of a range of schemes the Environment Agency were working on in the area. The work would be funded by Government grant with contributions from the Borough of Poole through supplementary credit approval. The Environment Agency had carried out consultation in Hamworthy on 30th April 2003 and their proposals had also been discussed at Area Committees this year. The Head of Leisure Services reported that the Environment Agency had been invited to the meeting to present their proposals based on a feasibility study and appraisal report for sea defences at Hamworthy. The main part of this affected Hamworthy Park, although the focus of the work would be to protect residential and commercial properties.

Fiona Geddes from the Environment Agency made a presentation to Members and stated that studies had shown what areas of Hamworthy were at risk from extreme tide levels and wave action affecting Lake Road, Branksea Avenue and the lower part of the Park. With the aid of slides, Fiona identified how the flooding took place in specific locations.

Fiona highlighted the appraisal process (Stage 1) which had considered:

  • An assessment of damages
  • Preparation of outlined scheme options
  • Environmental assessment
  • Public exhibition/consultation.

Members were advised of the outlined options which had been compared against a “do nothing” option. The options were:

  • Option 1 – 1.2m high wall along the existing promenade at a cost of £2.95 million.
  • Option 2 – combination of 1m high banks and walls at rear of the Park, adjacent to properties – cost £2.15million.
  • Option 3 – Similar to 2, added intermittent wave break of 0.30m high near promenade allowed the rear bank/walls to be 0.25m lower – cost £2.05million.

It had been necessary to review the consultation responses, develop the scheme options further and assess the costs in greater detail. As part of this process, a scheme selection criteria would be put in place which would consider:

  • Practicalities – construction, health and safety and maintenance
  • Economic – governed by Treasury and DEFRA guidelines.
  • Environmental impact.

Fiona highlighted the fact that Scheme 3 was the preferred scheme on all 3 counts.

Finally, Fiona highlighted the next steps in this process which would:

  • Completion of the formal business case report
  • Further landowner consultations
  • Planning application submission
  • Detailed design
  • Construction – commencing autumn 2004 subject to finance and approval.

Mrs Smeaton on behalf of the Friends of Hamworthy Park made a short presentation to Members and drew attention to various concerns. She emphasised that the Friends wanted to ensure that the implementation of defences was not detrimental to either the Park or its amenities. The Friends definitely wanted to protect the Park from intrusion of the banks, ramps and barriers as described for Options 2 and 3. Both these options would severely limit access, promote additional anti-social behaviour and raise safety issues. She emphasised the anti-social behaviour that was taking place in the location and that the toilets and beach huts continued to be vandalised and litter bins, etc. ignited.

The access ramp proposed in Options 2 and 3 were a particular worry. It was asked whether this ramp would constitute the only access route into the Park? There was no doubt that such a ramp would prove to be very popular with the skate boarding fraternity as well as those with mountain bikes and more significantly, would be very useful to those youngsters with a penchant for stealing cars. The Friends felt sure that the proposed purpose built ramp would be abused. Furthermore, the unwieldly nature of the floodgates situated at the eastern end of the Option 2 and 3 flood wall would cause great inconvenience to the many service vehicles that needed to enter the Park daily. She questioned the use of this floodgate which she understood must be closed at all times and asked how access would be made by emergency services etc.

Mrs Smeaton referred to the proposed banks and felt that the one which isolated the tennis court from the rest of the Park would have to be trampled over constantly just to acquire access. The bank would become a new play facility and create a ditch which would become a rubbish repository along Lulworth Avenue. In addition, she felt that the bank would block the Branksea Avenue entrance, which would soon become a good place to practice cycle jumps etc. The long term ongoing maintenance of these banks would be a costly burden on the Council.

It was also felt that there was particular concern regarding the probability of sewerage pollution in flood conditions. Options 2 and 3 should therefore be discounted. With regard to Option 1, it was now felt that the installation of such a wall could be seen as a new beginning, a chance to revamp and improve the Park. Finally, she stated that the Friends of Hamworthy Park favoured seaward defences.

Mr Hodgson, Secretary of Lake Residents’ Association made a short presentation to Members and stated that the Committee had not met formally to discuss the issue, but he had canvassed the views of those residents most likely to be affected at the lower end of Lake Road. He made the following comments:

  • All residents felt that a lack of any direct communication by the Environment Agency to discuss the expected flood problems with these probable insurance implications had not been in their best interests.
  • A more detailed plan of the projected flood area had been obtained and this showed only one property to be at risk from flooding and five others with water incursion on both to the front and the rear of their land. The study did not include Lake Road properties. The only recommendation was for a ramp across the bottom of Lake Road. The ramp was stated as allowing vehicle and trailer access, but there was no indication of its profile or height. Assurances were required that the proposed ramp could be negotiated by a vehicle trailing a Poole canoe.
  • The flooding to the rear of the properties was due to the existence of a stream running between the properties and Moriconium Quay. Unless this was banked or converted to a culvert with raised sides, flooding would continue. Residents failed to see the point of a ramp to stop water entering the front door if it was allowed to come in through the back. There were no proposals to control this stream.

Finally, a resident from Branksea Avenue had raised the question of what happened if the owners of one of the eight properties requiring sea defence reinforcement refused permission for these modifications. Surely, this could nullify the defence of the other Branksea Avenue properties. What was the procedure to cover such an eventuality?

Mr Knight of Lulworth Avenue made a presentation to Members on behalf of Lulworth Avenue residents. He drew attention to the following:

The consultation process was of a limited nature. Views submitted seemed to have been dismissed without reason or costing and the residents believed it was only ever going to be a “bund” behind the houses in the start and all documentation indicated this.

It was only when residents in Branksea Avenue were consulted and were kind enough to communicate with others, that we were aware of the published flood plain and that a scheme was evolving.

Only 3-4 floods had been experienced in the Park in the last 50 years. The worst in the 1950’s. The water had reached his garden wall, but only once had it come into the first couple of feet of the garden. Much of the flooding was caused by rainfall, a high water table and a slope in the Park from West to East. A wall would not necessary prevent the gardens from flooding. There had never been waves to justify “wave barriers”.

Everyone who had spoken to him, supported the “bund” behind the beach huts as this would be no more environmentally an intrusion than the huts themselves. The reasons for this were:

  1. For the same cost, the Park, the children’s pond, playground, café, toilets and tennis court would all be protected. £2million plus could be very effective in maintaining this very important recreational area.
  2. Access to the Park would not be confined to one entrance – up a ramp into the car park – the proposals seemed to close all the entrances.
  3. Access for emergency services would not be possible to all parts of the Park under the proposed arrangement. This was very necessary because of the many activities which took place in the area. The flood barrier gate was not the answer.
  4. Residents on the southern side of Lulworth Avenue had had free access to the Park for well over 70 years. This was granted by the previous owner. That right must now be well established. Small boats, canoes, etc. were all carried to the shore and were stored at home.
  5. Several residents were disabled and that they deserved consideration and consultation.
  6. It was proposed to cut down 11 trees. Fifty years ago the Park was barren and treeless, these were now well established and it was difficult to protect newly planted trees from vandals.
  7. Two autumns ago, school children planted hundreds of daffodil bulbs along the edges of the Park where the proposed bund was recommended. What an example to cover their “site” with a bund when establishing the same thing behind the huts would elimate the need to protect slow-worms, fell trees, amenities or restrict access in any way.

He asked Members to use the £2million plus wisely for the sake of future generations and reject the recommended proposal in favour of the plan everyone seems to want except the Environment Agency.

A Member stated that the residents were extremely pleased that the issue of flood defence for Hamworthy was firmly on the public agenda. He reminded Members that Hamworthy Park at 26.5 acres was the largest area of public open space in Hamworthy. With the plan to regenerate, Lower Hamworthy would grow by several thousand residents and it would be irresponsible to consign this area of Park land to the sea. The Environment Agency was saying that their concern was to protect houses and essential infrastructure – this did not fit well with Government guidance which was to ensure new developments had sufficient green space. Turning to the options, he felt:

  • Option 1 was the only option proposed which protected the Park, but this was somewhat intrusive and the most expensive option.
  • Option 2 was also intrusive for those properties and gardens close to the Park boundary. It might well attract antisocial behaviour and involved complicated floodgate which would make it difficult for service and emergency vehicles to access the Park, etc.
  • Option 3 – several residents had stated that an amended version of this might be acceptable. They felt that a low level wave break on the promenade could be quite attractive, this coupled with the rear bank wall but much closer from the boundary could be the answer. He felt that this would have several advantages, such as:

-Vehicle access could continue as present

-Most of the Park would be safe from flooding

-The visual impact of the changes would be minimised

It was also the cheapest solution and he urged the Group to consider an amendment asking for further investigation of possible modifications to Option 3.

A Member stated that a planning application had been submitted for 400 new homes in the area, with a bridge over the existing railway line to give access. It was quite clear that there was already a shortage of open space in the locality. It was essential for a flood defence scheme to protect houses and for it to do all it could to protect the Park. He felt that Option 3 could work really well, but further investigation would need to be carried out as to where the bund was situated.

Fiona Geddes responded to some of the points by stating that the Environmental Report which some residents had seen was only looking at the impact on the Park but did not take account of cost, etc. This document was only one part of the process. She also understood the concerns that the proposals would have an impact but if the work was not done, then surely this would be short sighted. It was important to ensure that the guidelines laid down by DEFRA were achieved, but she was more than happy to take on board the views of those who used the Park. There were lots of issues that were still to be addressed and had been raised by speakers at the meeting such as access/antisocial behaviour/vehicles and emergency vehicles and they would all come out in the details later. She stated that if one owner failed to co-operate, then that could stop the scheme happening in that particular area. The rest of the scheme stood up on its own but flooding to those properties without defences would still happen.

Fiona Geddes stated that she would look into the question relating to the stream and it was important to ensure that the options would not make the situation worse, and that there was sufficient drainage.

The Head of Leisure Services stated that despite the recommendations in his report which were in some cases the opposite to what residents had put forward, he felt that all parties were seeking the same objectives in protecting the Park. A larger wall would be damaging and in some cases could have more of an effect than the actual flooding. Access was also important and he was certain that these matters could be addressed. But he felt that the proposals shouldn’t make vehicle access too easy. He felt that it was the aim of everyone to protect the Park for the future, and he still felt that the option for protection at the back of the Park would have the least impact rather than a large wall at the front.

A Member proposed that the Environment Agency be asked to consider a variation to Option 3 to investigate the possibility of moving the bund/wall towards the seafront. The Environment Agency were also asked to investigate further the issues which had been raised regarding the stream in Lake Road.

The proposal was seconded.

Fiona Geddes stated that she was happy to investigate the water course and could check the minimum distances required for the bund/wall but highlighted the fact that this work could cause problems with timescales as further consultation would have to be carried out and assessments made if this further option was the preferred view of the Council.