Information provided by North Norfolk District Council - www.northnorfolk.org/coastal
A Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) is a "document which sets out a strategy for coastal defence for a specified length of coast, taking account of natural coastal processes and other environmental influences and needs" (MAFF, 1995). The overall aim of a SMP is to provide the basis for more sustainable coastal defence policies into the future.
SMPs are based on sediment transport sub-cells, within which the movement of sand and shingle size sediment by longshore drift on the beach and in the immediate nearshore area is relatively independent of adjacent cells. Two sediment transport sub-cells have been defined within the North Norfolk coastal frontage. The first extends from Snettisham to Sheringham (Sub-cell 3a), while the second extends from Sheringham to Lowestoft (Sub-cell 3b). Within each sediment transport sub-cell, coastal defence operating authorities have worked together to produce SMPs. These SMPs co-ordinate their future coastal defence policies, recognising the fact that uncoordinated coastal defence policies in one area could result in potential adverse impacts on adjacent areas of coast.
SMPs split the coastline into a series of Management Units, each containing a coherent type of coastal environment. For each Management Unit, a strategic coastal defence option has been adopted. The complete range of options comprises "Do Nothing", "Hold The Existing Line", "Advance The Existing Line", "Managed Realignment of the Existing Line" and the new 2004 SMP review may include an additional policy of "Limited Intervention".
Both the 3a and 3b SMPs were adopted by North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) in 1996. The next stage in the process is for NNDC to undertake strategy studies to develop a programme of coastal defence works, based upon the adopted strategic coastal defence options for each Management Unit. Currently two Strategy studies are complete (Cromer and Happisburgh) and two more (Overstrand to Mundesley and Bacton) are due for completion by summer 2003.
Ongoing monitoring and analyses of development of coastal morphology and coastal processes is a crucial element in the NNDC proposals for implementation of the SMPs. This will be the mechanism for judging the long term sustainability of the policies contained within the adopted SMPs. It was recognised during the initial production of the SMPs that these plans were based upon our knowledge of the coastal system at that point in time. However, it was also recognised that it may be necessary to undertake further regional scale studies, in order to improve our present day understanding of the coastal system as a whole.
The results of ongoing monitoring and analysis, together with related regional scale studies, will be of extreme importance in the five yearly reviews of adopted SMPs. The SMP reviews began in early 2003. To achieve a standard consistency of the 52 SMP's throughout England and Wales Defra (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, formerly MAFF) funded the creation of SMP Procedural Guidance. This will guide all maritime district councils, the Environment Agency and other responsible authorities through the process of SMP creation. It was recognised that it would be difficult to establish good guidance without actually working on a 'real' SMP at the same time. Therefore the 3B SMP (Sheringham to Lowestoft) was selected as an ideal candidate for this. The process is currently underway and the final SMP should be completed by Spring 2004.
In theory it is possible for a Local Authority to fund a coast protection capital scheme from it's own resources although in practice this is rarely an option because of the financial sums involved (this Council's capital programme has averaged £750,000 for the last 10 years). The route usually taken is to get a scheme approved by DEFRA who then provide grant aid in accordance with a formula that takes into account the eligible costs of the scheme, the Council's existing burden for coast protection works over the last ten years and the Council's Band 'D' equivalent for the year in which the scheme commences. New schemes in this Authority's capital programme are expected to attract grant at 45%.
When DEFRA grant is awarded, the Council are given special borrowing powers called Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) to finance the remaining cost of the scheme. The Government takes the estimated cost of loan repayments into account when calculating the Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) of the Authority and Revenue Support Grant (RSG).
Three areas are worthy of separate note:
This Council has an annual revenue budget (£400,000 for 2002/2003) for the repair of existing coast protection structures. Expenditure of this nature is not subject to DEFRA grant but there are SSA and RSG arrangements similar to those for loan charges. In this instance the SSA is currently based on an average of the last three years' actual or estimated expenditure, adjusted to current prices. The settlement for 2003/2004 is thus based on the actual expenditure for 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 and the estimate for 2002/2003.
During the discussions leading up to the 1998/99 Finance Settlement, it had become apparent that the basis on which financial support to Local Authorities for expenditure on flood defence and coast protection is currently distributed was being challenged. Most of Local Authority expenditure in this field goes to meet levies from the Environment Agency and Internal Drainage Boards but some Authorities have significant expenditure on their own flood defence arrangements and on coast protection. Central Government is firmly of the opinion that wherever possible, financial support for services should only be provided where robust indicators for the need to spend can be included in Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs).
A number of options for changing the mechanisms for providing support were considered by the Standard Spending Assessments Sub-Group. In the end, no firm conclusions could be reached and the Government agreed to take no action in the 1998/99 Finance Settlement. A change to an actual cost method of calculation was made for the 1999/2000 Finance Settlement and all subsequent years, as discussed above.
Currently coastal defence activity is split between maritime district councils, carrying out coast protection works, and the Environment Agency, carrying out flood defence works. There are fundamental differences between these two types of organisation, which are largely reflected in their constitution.
District Councils are totally elected multi-function bodies. The decision making process requires Council Members to take an active role in the implementation of schemes. In addition the multi-function role of the Council ensures that issues such as planning, tourism and economic development are considered as a matter of course when deciding on coast protection schemes.
In contrast, the Environment Agency acts through Boards at local, regional and national level. Boards are constituted partly of government appointees and representatives of County Councils. It should be noted that County Councils do not have a specific coastal role other than through the Structure Plan. The largely single function of the Environment Agency means that potential inputs relating to planning, tourism and economic development are not considered as a matter of course.
Finally, the organisational structure of the two bodies means that district councils have inherently greater contact at local level than the relatively remote structure of the Agency where, for example, the Anglian Regional office is in Peterborough.
MAFF (the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have now been replaced by Defra) introduced the Prioritisation Scoring Scheme in 1997 in order to allow them to optimise the allocation of Grant Aid for Flood and Coastal Defence works. A new system for distributing funds was required because the Government has a limited annual budget for Grant Aid and every year this was easily being exceeded by the demands for funding new schemes. The scheme covers all Grant Aid applications, whether they are for Shoreline Management Plans, Strategy Studies or new defence schemes. All coastal protection schemes from 2003 onwards are subject to a revised Priority Scoring System. The new system is described at the end of this document.
Under both the 1997 and 2003 Prioritisation Scoring Schemes applications for Grant Aid must meet the same basic criteria as before 1997, namely that they are technically sound, environmentally acceptable and economically viable (a benefit:cost ratio of at least 1).
Additionally a 'priority score' must be calculated for the proposed scheme. The 1997-2003 score consists of three components: Priority, Urgency and Economics. Each component is scored out of 10 to give a total score out of 30.
The Priority component reflects the Government's priorities for flood and coastal defence and is based on the principal land use. A scheme is 'Urban' if 50% of the calculated benefits relate to industrial, commercial, or domestic property, or major infrastructure. Table 1 details the scores.
Table 1. The Priority Component.
Category Description Score
| A | Flood Warning | 10 |
| B | Urban coastal/tidal defences; environmental assets of international importance | 8 |
| C | Urban flood defence | 8 |
| D | Rural coastal/tidal defences; environmental assets of national significance | 4 |
| E | New rural flood defences; environmental assets of local significance | 2 |
The Urgency component is intended to determine how quickly works are required and whether delay will create unacceptable risk of flooding or erosion. Table 2 shows the scores that relate to the residual life of the defences. Other tables are used if the scheme is intended to upgrade existing defences or for studies although, for coast protection works, the residual life scores are usually used.
Table 2. The Urgency component
| Residual life of the defences | Score |
| Failure has already occurred | 10 |
| Failure expected within 2 years | 8 |
| Failure expected within 5 years | 6 |
| Failure NOT expected within 5 years | 0 |
The economic component is determined purely on the benefit:cost ratio achieved by the scheme. The higher the ratio, the more points the scheme scores as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. The Economic component
Benefit/cost ratio Score
| Over 5 | 10 |
| Between 3 and 5 | 8 |
| Between 2 and 3 | 6 |
| Between 1.5 and 2 | 4 |
| Between 1 and 1.5 | 2 |
| Shoreline Management Plans/Strategic studies | 8 |
Annually, DEFRA publishes a 'threshold score' for the following year and if a scheme's 'prioritisation score' is equal to or exceeds this threshold then it can be considered for Grant Aid. If the score is less than the threshold then the scheme cannot be considered for Grant Aid. Table 4 gives details of the threshold scores since the scheme began.
Table 4. Prioritisation Scoring Scheme - Threshold scores
| YEAR | THRESHOLD SCORE |
| 98-99 | 22 |
| 99-00 | 23 |
| 00-01 | 23 |
| 01-02 | 20 |
| 02-03 | 20 |
| 03-04 | 22 (under new system) |
Even if a scheme fails to attract Grant Aid, it is still possible to get approval for it if DEFRA's criteria are met. However, without Grant Aid it is very unlikely that a Local Authority (such as NNDC) will be able to afford to continue with the scheme.
Comments:
If NNDC look to promote a scheme then the Priority score is fixed at 8 because it will always be for Urban Coastal Defence. The Urgency score will always be between 6 and 10 and will improve as the situation gets worse. This gives a range of scores between 14 and 18 meaning that currently the benefit:cost ratio becomes the deciding factor in whether a scheme can reach the threshold score.
In some of our clifftop villages it can be a struggle to reach even the minimum benefit:cost ratio of 1 because sufficient assets are not present or are not threatened in the near future. The use of amenity benefits is permitted but DEFRA generally only regard these as a top up after the basic calculation has been made. It is costly to assess the value of a tourist beach and the valuation methods are open to disagreement. It is thus not often possible to include tourism/amenity benefits in the calculations in a way that is acceptable to DEFRA.
A further problem can be seen in Table 2 (Urgency), which indicated that unless failure is expected within 5 years no points can be scored. Authorities wishing to plan ahead and carry out works in a timely manner are therefore penalised. To wait until failure has occurred to score the maximum 10 points is surely poor management. The effect of failure on a tourist economy cannot be quantified with ease. It is apparent though that degraded defences which may also have contributed to loss of beach material does have an effect on the perception of a tourist based town and hence on its economy.
A review of the Prioritisation Scoring System has been undertaken to assess its success in the first three years. Although the outcome of this review has not yet been published it is expected that alterations will be made to the system, in particular to give more consideration to social issues.
Examples:
The following two examples are both schemes that were approved before the Prioritisation Scoring Scheme was introduced. However, if it had been in operation, this is how they would have fared.
Sheringham Coast Protection Scheme Stage 2
| Priority | Urban Coastal Defence Scheme | 8 points |
| Urgency | Failure expected within 2 years | 8 points |
| Economics | Ratio between 2 and 3 (2.28) | 6 points |
| Total Score | 22 points |
Looking at Table 4, one can see that this scheme would have been
considered in some years and not in others but it is likely that we
would have received approval for it.
Overstrand 'Clifton Way' Scheme
| Priority | Urban Coastal Defence Scheme | 8 points |
| Urgency | Failure has already occurred | 10 points |
| Economics | Ratio between 1 and 1.5 | 2 points |
| Total score | 20 points |
Looking at Table 4, this financial year (01-02) is the first time that
the threshold score has been as low as 20 points. If the failure had
occurred in recent years, this year would be the first occasion in
which the scheme could be considered for Grant Aid.
New Defra Priority Scoring System - 2003 onwards
Defra have introduced a revised scoring system for all Flood and Coastal Defence schemes submitted after 2002. The official guide the the new system can be downloaded from the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/flood/LDW14.pdf. The new system divides the 44 potential points score into three catagories, economics (20 points), people (12 points) and the environment (12 points).
Economics
The economics section deals with the cost:benefit analysis similar to that above. For a cost:benefit ratio of 1, 1 point is allocated. A cost:benefit ratio of greater than 10.5 awards 20 points (the maximum). All ratios between 1 and 10.5 are awarded between 1 and 20 points on a linear scale. Any scheme with a cost:benefit ratio of less than one recieves no points.
People
The people score is divided into three separate sections. The first section takes the number of individual properties at risk into account, regardless of their economic value. This is achieved by multipling the total number of properties at risk over the design life of the scheme (usually 50-60 years) by 75 and the dividing the result by the cost(£k) of the scheme. This accounts for the first 8 points of the people score.
The second part of the people score accounts for risk. An area that can be described as very high risk is awarded 2 points. A high risk area 1 point and for all other areas no adjustment is made. Latest guidence suggests that schemes protecting a coast from erosion cannot be described as 'high risk'.
The third section is social vulnerability or base people score. All parish wards in England and Wales are ranked according to their degrees of social vulnerability. Parish scores can be found on the DTLR website. The points awarded for this range from 2 for the most deprived areas to -2 for the least deprived areas. Most parish wards in North Norfolk are somewhere in the middle of the deprivation index and therfore no additional points are awarded.
Environment
This section accounts for any environmental benefits that may be achievable by the implimentation of the scheme. This includes the protection of an existing designated area as well as the possible creation of new habitat e.g. salt marsh creation through managed realingnment of flood defences. Additional points can be gained should there be any heritage sites, such as listed buildings, that are protected as a result of the scheme.