SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  35
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
1
GLOUCESTER TO SHARPNESS
This Theme area contains the Policy Units SHAR 1, SHAR 2, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5,
SHAR 6, SHAR 7 and SHAR 8.
It starts at the drain from Long Brook and ends at the south of Sharpness Docks.
The Key Policy Drivers in this area are:
• International nature conservation sites – Severn Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites;
• Critical infrastructure – railway line, electricity transmission network, sewage treatment
works, Sharpness docks.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
2
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
3
Policy Unit: SHAR 1 – Severn Farm to Wick’s Green (east bank of the
River Severn)
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
4
Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan:
Epoch
Preferred
Policy
Comments
0 to 20
years
(2025)
HTL
The Short Term policy for this unit is Hold the Line.
Prior to MR in the second epoch, existing defences should be maintained. ..
HTL is not intended to allow new defences to be built along currently
undefended parts of the shoreline in this area.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
20 to 50
years
(2055)
MR
The medium term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment.
The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this
epoch and a new, realigned defence should be constructed to create new
intertidal habitat. The position, size and materials of new defences should be
considered in detail to ensure MR does not impact on the risk of flooding to
developed areas, internal drainage or the linked Policy Units (GLO 6, GLO 7,
GLO 8 and SHAR 2).
The precise location and type of defence should be determined by the
SEFRMS. This should also determine whether MR should be phased over
this epoch and the next. MR will manage the risk of impacts from flooding
and erosion to assets behind the new defences.
Land, nature conservation and historic environment features in front of the
new line of defences or in areas of NAI will be at increased risk of flooding
and erosion. Adaptation actions should be considered and implemented.
The habitat created in this Policy Unit will help compensate for areas lost
elsewhere in the estuary and help maintain/improve the condition of the
European protected sites.
MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences.
50 to 100
years
(2105)
MR
The long term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment.
New realigned defences should be maintained. If MR is being undertaken in
a phased manner, the second phase should take place in this epoch. MR will
manage the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion to assets behind the
new defences.
MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
5
Economics
Policy
Unit
Existing
SMP1
Policy
Time Period
(epoch)
SMP2 Assessment
0-
20
20-
50
50-
100
Preferred Plan Present Value
Damages
Preferred Plan Present Value
Defence Costs
SHAR
1
HTL HTL MR MR
£24m
(GLO6-8, SHAR1-2 total)
£10m
(GLO6-8, SHAR1-2 total)
The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 6, GLO 7, GLO 8, SHAR 1,
and SHAR 2, but the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is low. Where the BCR is low, schemes may be less likely to
receive public funding and it may be necessary to find funding from other sources. The costs and damages
of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
6
Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 1 Policy Unit
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
0 – 20
years
The existing defence line
should be maintained
until a new realigned
defence line is created in
the next epoch.
The existing flood defences
will continue to reduce the
risk to existing properties
and land in this epoch.
There will be limited
impact in this epoch as
the existing defence
line gradually
deteriorates over time.
Works should take
account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an
EIA.
Limited erosion and
flood risk will not impact
on existing landscape
and visual amenity
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
amenity value of the land
or recreational use.
20 – 50
years
Defences are expected
to come to the end of
their serviceable life.
Prior to complete failure
of the existing defences,
a new realigned earth
embankment should be
established to allow
habitat creation and to
reduce the risk of
impacts from fluvial
flooding by increasing
floodwater conveyance
A total of 156 Ha of
agricultural land will be
undefended and will be
subject to frequent flood risk.
Erosion in this section of the
estuary is limited. Realigned
defences will manage the
risk to properties and land
behind new defences.
Assets in front of realigned
defences will be at risk from
inundation. Impacts on
property and land, and
mitigation actions will need
to be considered in
determining realignment of
defences
A MR policy will allow
the creation of
approximately 156 Ha
of additional intertidal
habitat. However there
may be loss of
terrestrial habitats as
intertidal habitats roll
back. Works should
take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need
for an EIA.
The creation of intertidal
habitat will replace
existing agricultural
land, altering the
landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of impacts
to historic environment
assets behind new
defences. Assets in front of
realigned defences will be
at risk from inundation.
Managed re-alignment is
likely to adversely impact
on a limited number of
listed buildings. Impacts on
historic environment
assets, and mitigation
actions, will need to be
considered in determining
realignment of defences
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences. . Impacts on
recreational assets, and
mitigation actions, will
need to be considered in
determining realignment
of defences
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
7
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
50 – 100
years
The new defence line
should be maintained.
The second phase of MR
should take place in this
epoch if a phased
approach is being
implemented
Realigned defences will
manage the risk to
properties and land behind
new defences.
A MR policy will allow
the creation of
approximately 156 Ha
of additional intertidal
habitat. However there
may be loss of
terrestrial habitats as
intertidal habitats roll
back. Works should
take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need
for an EIA.
In the long term sea
level rise will result in
more frequent flooding
of the seaward side of
the defence line and
creation of intertidal
habitat, altering the
landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of impacts
to historic environment
assets behind new
defences. Assets in front of
realigned defences will be
at risk from inundation.
Managed re-alignment is
likely to adversely impact
on a limited number of
listed buildings. Impacts on
historic environment
assets, and mitigation
actions, will need to be
considered in determining
realignment of defences
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
8
Policy Unit: SHAR 2 – Wick’s Green to Longley Green (east bank of the
River Severn)
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
9
Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan:
Epoch
Preferred
Policy
Comments
0 to 20
years
(2025)
HTL
The Short Term policy for this unit is Hold the Line.
Prior to MR in the second epoch, existing defences should be maintained.
HTL is not intended to allow new defences to be built along currently
undefended parts of the shoreline in this Policy Unit.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
20 to 50
years
(2055)
MR
The medium term policy for this unit is a Managed Realignment policy.
The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this
epoch and a new, realigned defence should be constructed to enable new
intertidal habitat to be created. The position, size and materials of new
defences should be considered in detail to ensure MR does not impact on
the risk of flooding to developed areas, internal drainage or the linked Policy
Units (GLO 6, GLO 7, GLO 8 and SHAR 1). Improvements to the way
flooding from river sources flows through the area (flood conveyance) should
also be considered. The precise location and type of defence should be
determined by the SEFRMS.
MR will manage the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion to assets
behind the new defences.
Land, nature conservation and historic environment features in front of the
new line of defences or in areas of NAI will be at increased risk of flooding
and erosion. Adaptation actions should be considered and implemented.
The habitat created in this Policy Unit will help compensate for areas lost
elsewhere in the estuary and help maintain/improve the condition of the
European protected sites.
MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences.
50 to 100
years
(2105)
HTL
The long term policy for this unit is a Hold The Line policy.
New realigned defences should be maintained. HTL will manage the risk of
impacts from flooding and erosion to assets behind the new defences.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
10
Economics
Policy
Unit
Existing
SMP1
Policy
Time Period
(epoch)
SMP2 Assessment
0-
20
20-
50
50-
100
Preferred Plan Present Value
Damages
Preferred Plan Present Value
Defence Costs
SHAR
2
HTL HTL MR HTL
£24m
(GLO6-8, SHAR1-2 total)
£10m
(GLO6-8, SHAR1-2 total)
The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 6, GLO 7, GLO 8, SHAR 1,
and SHAR 2, but the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is low. Where the BCR is low, schemes may be less likely to
receive public funding and it may be necessary to find funding from other sources. The costs and damages
of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
11
Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 2 Policy Unit
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
0 – 20
years
The existing defence line
will should be maintained
until a new realigned
defence is created.
The existing flood
defences will continue to
reduce the risk to existing
properties and land in this
epoch.
There will be limited
impact in this epoch as
the existing defence line
is maintained. Works
should take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need for
an EIA.
Limited erosion and
flood risk will not impact
on existing landscape
and visual amenity.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
amenity value of the land
or recreational use.
20 – 50
years
Prior to the failure of the
existing defences, a new
earth embankment
should be established
A total of 352 Ha of
agricultural land will be
undefended and will be
subject to frequent flood
risk. Erosion in this section
of the estuary is limited.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk to
properties and land behind
new defences. Assets in
front of realigned defences
will be at risk from
inundation. Impacts on
property and land, and
mitigation actions will need
to be considered in
determining realignment of
defences.
A MR policy will allow the
creation of approximately
352 Ha of additional
intertidal habitat. There
will be loss of terrestrial
habitats as intertidal
habitats roll back. Works
should take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need for
an EIA.
The creation of intertidal
habitat will replace
existing agricultural
land, altering the
landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of impacts
from flooding to historic
environment assets behind
new defences. Assets in
front of realigned defences
will be at risk from
inundation. Managed re-
alignment is likely to
adversely impact on a
limited number of listed
buildings. Impacts on
historic environment
assets, and mitigation
actions, will need to be
considered in determining
realignment of defences
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences. Impacts on
recreational assets, and
mitigation actions, will
need to be considered in
determining realignment
of defences
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
12
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
50 – 100
years
The new defence line
should be maintained.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk to
properties and land behind
new defences.
A MR policy will allow the
creation of approximately
352 Ha of additional
intertidal habitat. There
will be loss of terrestrial
habitats as intertidal
habitats roll back. Works
should take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need for
an EIA.
In the long term sea
level rise will result in
more frequent flooding
of the seaward side of
the defence line and
creation of intertidal
habitat, altering the
landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of impacts
from flooding to historic
environment assets behind
new defences. Assets in
front of realigned defences
will be at risk from
inundation. Managed re-
alignment is likely to
adversely impact on a
limited number of listed
buildings. Impacts on
historic environment
assets, and mitigation
actions, will need to be
considered in determining
realignment of defences
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
13
Policy Unit: SHAR 3 – Longley Green to Overton Lane (east bank of
the River Severn)
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
14
Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan:
Epoch
Preferred
Policy
Comments
0 to 20
years
(2025)
HTL
The Short Term policy for this unit is Hold The Line.
The current defences are expected to remain in place for this epoch but may
require some reconstruction / extensive works during this epoch. HTL will
manage the risk of impacts from flooding in this epoch.
It is part of 8 linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4,
SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). Actions should take account of potential
impacts in all linked areas.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
20 to 50
years
(2055)
HTL
The medium term policy for this unit is Hold The Line.
The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this
epoch. HTL recommends that defences are replaced. The position, size
and materials of new defences should be considered in detail to ensure
actions take account of potential impacts on linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO
4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). The precise
location and type of defence should be determined by the SEFRMS. HTL
will manage the risk of impacts from flooding.
Where there are currently no defences, investigation should be carried out to
find out if new defences are needed or if other actions could reduce the risk
of flooding from coastal flooding.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
50 to 100
years
(2105)
HTL
The long term policy for this unit is Hold The Line.
New defences should be maintained. HTL will manage the risk of impacts
from flooding in this and linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3,
SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7).
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
Economics
Policy
Unit
Existing
SMP1
Policy
Time Period
(epoch)
SMP2 Assessment
0-
20
20-
50
50-
100
Preferred Plan Present Value
Damages
Preferred Plan Present Value
Defence Costs
SHAR
3
HTL HTL HTL HTL
£124m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
£23m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
The preferred policy is economically viable for this unit. The preferred policy is economically viable for the
linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs
and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
15
Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 3 Policy Unit
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
0 – 20
years
The current earth
embankment defences
are expected to come to
the end of their
serviceable life during the
next epoch but may
require reconstruction /
extensive works during
this epoch.
Defences will manage the
risk of impacts from
flooding to existing
property, land use or
human health.
A HTL policy will not
significantly impact on
nature conservation sites.
Works should take
account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an EIA.
Defences are likely to
come to the end of their
serviceable life in the next
epoch but may require
reconstruction / extensive
works during this epoch.
Increased height of
defences or change in
defence construction
materials will affect local
landscape - increasing
presence in the
landscape and disrupting
views.
Defences will manage the
risk of impacts from
flooding to the historic
environment
Defences will manage the
risk to amenity or
recreational value of the
land.
20 – 50
years
The current earth
embankment defences
are expected to come to
the end of their
serviceable life during this
epoch and should be
replaced. A maintenance
programme should be
established to ensure the
defences continue to
function.
Defences will manage the
risk of impacts from
flooding to existing
property, land use or
human health.
Coastal squeeze may
occur which will result in
loss of intertidal habitats.
Works should take
account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an EIA.
Defences are likely to
come to the end of their
serviceable life in this
epoch. Increased height
of defences or change in
defence construction
materials will affect local
landscape - increasing
presence in the
landscape and disrupting
views.
Defences will manage the
risk of impacts from
flooding to the historic
environment
Defences will manage the
risk to amenity or
recreational value of the
land.
50 – 100
years
An on-going maintenance
programme should be
established including the
monitoring of shoreline
erosion as sea level rise
increases.
Defences will manage the
risk of impacts from
flooding to existing
property, land use or
human health.
Coastal squeeze may
occur which will result in
loss of intertidal habitats.
Works should take
account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an EIA.
Increased height of
defences or change in
defence construction
materials will affect local
landscape - increasing
presence in the
landscape and disrupting
views.
Defences will manage the
risk of impacts from
flooding to the historic
environment
Defences will manage the
risk to amenity or
recreational value of the
land.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
16
Policy Unit: SHAR 4 – Overton Lane to Hock Cliff (east bank of the
River Severn)
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
17
Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan:
Epoch
Preferred
Policy
Comments
0 to 20
years
(2025)
HTL
The Short Term policy for this unit is Hold the Line.
Prior to MR in the second epoch, existing defences should be maintained.
Current defences may require extensive maintenance works.
HTL is not intended to allow new defences to be built along currently
undefended parts of the shoreline in this Policy Unit.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
20 to 50
years
(2055)
MR
The medium term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment.
The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this
epoch and a new, realigned defence should be constructed to enable new
intertidal habitat to be created. The position, size and materials of new
defences should be considered in detail.
MR should contribute to reducing the risk of flooding in linked Policy Units,
not increase it (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and
SHAR 7). Improvements to the way flooding from river sources flows
through the area (flood conveyance) should also be considered. The precise
location and type of defence should be determined by the SEFRMS. MR
manages the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion behind the new
defences.
Land, nature conservation and historic environment features in front of the
new line of defences will be at increased risk of flooding and erosion.
Adaptation actions should be considered and implemented where
appropriate. The habitat created in this Policy Unit will help compensate for
areas lost elsewhere in the estuary and help maintain/improve the condition
of the European protected sites.
MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences.
50 to 100
years
(2105)
MR
The long term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment.
New realigned defences should be maintained. A second phase of could be
undertaken in this epoch to further set back defences. MR manages the risk
of impacts from flooding and erosion behind the new defences.
MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
18
Economics
Policy
Unit
Existing
SMP1
Policy
Time Period
(epoch)
SMP2 Assessment
0-
20
20-
50
50-
100
Preferred Plan Present Value
Damages
Preferred Plan Present Value
Defence Costs
SHAR
4
HTL HTL MR MR
£124m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
£23m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3,
SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs and damages of the preferred policy in the table above
relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
19
Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 4 Policy Unit
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
0 – 20
years
The existing defence line
should be maintained
until a new realigned
defence line is created.
The existing flood
defences will continue to
reduce the risk to existing
properties and land in this
epoch.
There will be limited
impact in this epoch as
the existing defence line
gradually deteriorates
over time. Works should
take account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an EIA.
Limited erosion and
flood risk will not impact
on existing landscape
and visual amenity.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment.
Limited erosion and
flood risk will not impact
on the amenity value of
the land or recreational
use.
20 – 50
years
Prior to complete failure
of the existing earth
embankment, new
defences, should be
established to allow
habitat creation and to
reduce the impact from
fluvial flooding by
increasing floodwater
conveyance.
A total of 409 Ha of
agricultural land will be
undefended and will be
subject to frequent flood
risk. Erosion in this section
of the estuary is limited.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk to
properties and land behind
new defences. Assets in
front of realigned defences
will be at risk from
inundation. Impacts on
property and land, and
mitigation actions will need
to be considered in
determining realignment of
defences.
A MR policy will allow
the creation of
approximately 409 Ha of
additional intertidal
habitat. There will be
loss of terrestrial habitats
as intertidal habitats roll
back. Works should take
account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an EIA.
The creation of intertidal
habitat will replace
existing agricultural
land, altering the
landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk to historic
environment assets behind
new defences. Assets in
front of realigned defences
will be at risk from
inundation. Managed re-
alignment is likely to
adversely impact on a
limited number of listed
buildings. Impacts on
historic environment assets,
and mitigation actions, will
need to be considered in
determining realignment of
defences
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences. Impacts on
recreational assets, and
mitigation actions, will
need to be considered in
determining realignment
of defences
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
20
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
50 – 100
years
The new defence line
should be maintained. A
second phase of MR
could be undertaken to
further set back defences
and create more intertidal
habitat.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk to
properties and land behind
new defences.
A MR policy will allow
the creation of
approximately 409 Ha of
additional intertidal
habitat. There will be
loss of terrestrial habitats
as intertidal habitats roll
back. Works should take
account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an EIA.
In the long term sea
level rise will result in
more frequent flooding
of the seaward side of
the defence line and
creation of intertidal
habitat, altering the
landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk to historic
environment assets behind
new defences. Assets in
front of realigned defences
will be at risk from
inundation. Managed re-
alignment is likely to
adversely impact on a
limited number of listed
buildings. Impacts on
historic environment assets,
and mitigation actions, will
need to be considered in
determining realignment of
defences
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
21
Policy Unit: SHAR 5 – Hock Cliff (east bank of the River Severn)
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
22
Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan:
Epoch
Preferred
Policy
Comments
0 to 20
years
(2025)
NAI
The short term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention.
High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and
erosion in this Policy Unit.
NAI will allow natural processes to continue on Hock Cliff (RIGS) with little /
no impact to any assets along the top of the cliff.
20 to 50
years
(2055) NAI
The medium term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention.
High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and
erosion in this Policy Unit.
NAI will allow natural processes to continue on Hock Cliff (RIGS) with little /
no impact to any assets along the top of the cliff.
50 to 100
years
(2105) NAI
The long term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention.
High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and
erosion in this Policy Unit.
NAI will allow natural processes to continue on Hock Cliff (RIGS) with little /
no impact to any assets along the top of the cliff.
In the long term, the rate of erosion should be monitored. If the rate of
erosion increases, or assets are at risk, action should be considered. Any
actions should take account of impacts on linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4,
GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7).
Economics
Policy
Unit
Existing
SMP1
Policy
Time Period
(epoch)
SMP2 Assessment
0-
20
20-
50
50-
100
Preferred Plan Present Value
Damages
Preferred Plan Present Value
Defence Costs
SHAR
5
Do
nothing
NAI NAI NAI
£124m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
£23m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
The preferred policy has no economic impact in this Policy Unit. The preferred policy is economically
viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR
7. The costs of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units, not in
SHAR 5.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
23
Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 5 Policy Unit
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
0 – 20
years
The cliffs will remain
stable in this period, and
as a result management
activities will be very
limited.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing property, land
use or human health.
A NAI policy will allow the
continued exposure of
Hock Cliffs
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing landscape and
visual amenity
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
amenity value of the land
or recreational use.
20 – 50
years
The cliffs will undergo
limited erosion within this
period, and as a result
management activities
will be very limited.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing property, land
use or human health.
A NAI policy will allow the
continued exposure of
Hock Cliffs. High ground
will prevent roll back of
habitats – intertidal
habitat lost to coastal
squeeze.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing landscape and
visual amenity
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
amenity value of the land
or recreational use.
50 – 100
years
The cliffs will undergo
limited erosion within this
period, and as a result
management activities
will be very limited.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing property, land
use or human health.
A NAI policy will allow the
continued exposure of
Hock Cliffs. High ground
will prevent roll back of
habitats – intertidal
habitat lost to coastal
squeeze.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing landscape and
visual amenity
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
amenity value of the land
or recreational use.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
24
Policy Unit: SHAR 6 – Hock Cliff to Frampton Pill (east bank of River
Severn)
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
25
Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan:
Epoch
Preferred
Policy
Comments
0 to 20
years
(2025)
HTL
The short term policy for this unit is Hold The Line.
The current defences are expected to remain in place for this epoch but may
require some reconstruction / extensive works during this epoch. HTL
manages the risk of impacts from flooding in this epoch. Actions should take
account of potential impacts in all linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5,
SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7).
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
20 to 50
years
(2055)
HTL
The medium term policy for this unit is Hold The Line.
The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this
epoch. HTL recommends that defences are replaced. The position, size
and materials of new defences should be considered in detail to ensure
actions take account of potential impacts on linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO
4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, and SHAR 7).
The role that the Gloucester to Sharpness Canal can play in flood
management should be considered in determining the type and position of
new defences. The precise location and type of defence should be
determined by the SEFRMS. HTL manages the risk of impacts from flooding
in this and linked Policy Units.
Where there are currently no defences, investigation should be carried out to
find out if new defences are needed or if other actions could reduce the risk
of flooding from coastal flooding.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
50 to 100
years
(2105)
HTL
The long term policy for this unit is Hold The Line.
New defences should be maintained. HTL manages the risk of impacts from
flooding in this and linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3,
SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7).
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
26
Economics
Policy
Unit
Existing
SMP1
Policy
Time Period
(epoch)
SMP2 Assessment
0-
20
20-
50
50-
100
Preferred Plan Present Value
Damages
Preferred Plan Present Value
Defence Costs
SHAR
6
HTL HTL HTL HTL
£124m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
£23m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
The preferred policy for this unit is economically viable. The preferred policy is economically viable for the
linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs
and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
27
Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHA 6 Policy Unit
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use
and Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character and
Visual Amenity
Historic
Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
0 – 20
years
The current earth
embankment defences are
expected to come to the
end of their serviceable life
during the next epoch but
may require replacement /
extensive works during this
epoch.
Defences will manage
the risk of impacts to
existing property, land
use or human health.
A HTL policy will not
impact the nature
conservation sites during
this time period. Works
should take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need for
an EIA.
Defences are likely to come
to the end of their serviceable
life in the next epoch but may
require reconstruction /
extensive works during this
epoch. Increased height of
defences or change in
defence construction
materials will affect local
landscape - increasing
presence in the landscape
and disrupting views.
Defences will manage
the risk of impacts to
the historic
environment
Defences will manage the
risk to amenity or
recreational value of the
land and the canal
20 – 50
years
The current earth
embankment defences are
expected to come to the
end of their serviceable life
during this epoch and
should be replaced. A
maintenance programme
should be established to
ensure the defences afford
protection to the assets at
risk
Defences will manage
the risk of impacts to
existing property, land
use or human health.
A HTL policy may result
in coastal squeeze as sea
level rise increases. A
HTL policy will manage
the potential for saline
intrusion of Frampton
Pools. Works should take
account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an EIA.
Defences are likely to come
to the end of their serviceable
life in this epoch and should
be reconstructed. Increased
height of defences or change
in defence construction
materials will affect local
landscape - increasing
presence in the landscape
and disrupting views.
Defences will manage
the risk of impacts to
the historic
environment
Defences will manage the
risk to amenity or
recreational value of the
land and the canal
50 – 100
years
An on-going maintenance
programme should be
established including the
monitoring of shoreline
erosion as sea level rise
increases.
Defences will manage
the risk of impacts to
existing property, land
use or human health.
A HTL policy may result
in coastal squeeze as sea
level rise increases. A
HTL policy will manage
the potential for saline
intrusion of Frampton
Pools. Works should take
account of possible
environmental impacts
and the need for an EIA.
Increased height of defences
or change in defence
construction materials will
affect local landscape -
increasing presence in the
landscape and disrupting
views.
Defences will manage
the risk of impacts to
the historic
environment
Defences will manage the
risk to amenity or
recreational value of the
land and the canal
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
28
Policy Unit: SHAR 7 – Frampton Pill to Royal Drift outfall (east bank of
the River Severn)
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
29
Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan:
Epoch
Preferred
Policy
Comments
0 to 20
years
(2025)
MR
The Short Term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment.
The current defences are expected to remain in place for this epoch and
gradually deteriorate. A new realigned defence line should be created to
enable new intertidal habitat to be created. Replacing defences in their
current location is not considered appropriate as it would result in coastal
squeeze. MR will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to assets behind
the new defences.
The position, size and materials of new defences should be considered in
detail by the SEFRMS. MR should contribute to reducing the risk of impacts
from flooding in linked Policy Units, not increase it (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5,
SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, and SHAR 6). The role that the Gloucester to
Sharpness Canal can play in flood management should be considered.
Land, nature conservation and historic environment features in front of the
new line of defences will be at increased risk of flooding and erosion -
adaptation actions should be considered / implemented where appropriate.
The habitat created in this Policy Unit will help compensate for areas lost
elsewhere in the estuary and help maintain/improve the condition of the
European protected sites.
MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences.
20 to 50
years
(2055)
HTL
The medium term policy for this unit is Hold The Line.
New realigned defences should be maintained. HTL manages the risk of
impacts from flooding to assets behind the new defences.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
50 to 100
years
(2105)
HTL
The long term policy for this unit is Hold The line.
New realigned defences should be maintained. HTL manages the risk of
impacts from flooding to assets behind the new defences.
HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future
defences or to counter sea level rise.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
30
Economics
Policy
Unit
Existing
SMP1 Policy
Time Period
(epoch)
SMP2 Assessment
0-
20
20-
50
50-
100
Preferred Plan Present
Value Damages
Preferred Plan Present
Value Defence Costs
SHAR
7
HTL (or
Realignment)
MR HTL HTL
£124m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
£23m
(GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total)
The preferred policy for this unit is economically viable. The preferred policy is economically viable for the
linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs
and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
31
Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 7 Policy Unit
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
0 – 20
years
The existing defence line
will not be maintained and
a new set back defence
line will be created to
allow habitat creation and
to reduce the impact from
fluvial flooding by
increasing floodwater
conveyance..
A total of 187 Ha of
agricultural land will be
undefended and will
subject to frequent
flooding. Erosion in this
area of the estuary is
limited. Realigned
defences will manage the
risk of impacts to
properties and land
behind new defences.
Assets in front of
realigned defences will be
at risk from inundation.
Impacts on property and
land, and mitigation
actions will need to be
considered in determining
realignment of defences.
A MR policy will allow the
creation of approximately
187 Ha of additional
intertidal habitat. There
will be loss of terrestrial
habitats as intertidal
habitats roll back. Works
should take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need for
an EIA.
The creation of intertidal
habitat will replace
existing agricultural land,
altering the landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of
impacts to historic
environment assets
behind new defences.
Assets in front of
realigned defences will be
at risk from inundation.
Managed re-alignment is
likely to adversely impact
on a limited number of
listed buildings. Impacts
on historic environment
assets, and mitigation
actions, will need to be
considered in determining
realignment of defences
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences. Impacts on
recreational assets, and
mitigation actions, will
need to be considered in
determining realignment
of defences
20 – 50
years
The new defence line
should be maintained.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of
impacts to properties and
land behind new
defences.
A MR policy will allow the
creation of approximately
187 Ha of additional
intertidal habitat. There
will be loss of terrestrial
habitats as intertidal
habitats roll back. Works
should take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need for
an EIA.
The creation of intertidal
habitat will replace
existing agricultural land,
altering the landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of
impacts to historic
environment assets
behind new defences.
Assets in front of
realigned defences will be
at risk from inundation.
Managed re-alignment is
likely to adversely impact
on a limited number of
listed buildings.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
32
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
50 – 100
years
The new defence line
should be maintained.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of
impacts to properties and
land behind new
defences.
A MR policy will allow the
creation of approximately
187 Ha of additional
intertidal habitat. There
will be loss of terrestrial
habitats as intertidal
habitats roll back. Works
should take account of
possible environmental
impacts and the need for
an EIA.
In the long term sea level
rise will result in more
frequent flooding of the
seaward side of the
defence line and creation
of intertidal habitat,
altering the landscape.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk of
impacts to historic
environment assets
behind new defences.
Assets in front of
realigned defences will be
at risk from inundation.
Managed re-alignment is
likely to adversely impact
on a limited number of
listed buildings.
Realigned defences will
manage the risk on the
amenity value or
recreational use of the
land behind new
defences.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
33
Policy Unit: SHAR 8 – Royal Drift outfall to Sharpness Docks (east
bank of the River Severn)
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
34
Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan:
Epoch
Preferred
Policy
Comments
0 to 20
years
(2025)
NAI
The short term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention.
High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and
erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue. This
Policy Unit is not linked to any others.
20 to 50
years
(2055)
NAI
The medium term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention.
High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and
erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue. This
Policy Unit is not linked to any others.
50 to 100
years
(2105)
NAI
The long term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention.
High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and
erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue.
In the long term, the rate of erosion should be monitored. If the rate of
erosion increases, or assets are at risk, action should be considered. This
Policy Unit is not linked to any others.
Economics
Policy
Unit
Existing
SMP1
Policy
Time Period
(epoch)
SMP2 Assessment
0-
20
20-
50
50-
100
Preferred Plan Present Value
Damages
Preferred Plan Present Value
Defence Costs
SHAR
8
HTL NAI NAI NAI Minimal Minimal
The preferred policy has no economic impact. This Policy Unit is not linked to any others.
The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan
document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein.
Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report
35
Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 8 Policy Unit
Time
Period
Management Activities
Property, Land Use and
Human Health
Nature Conservation –
including Earth
Heritage, Geology and
Biodiversity
Landscape Character
and Visual Amenity
Historic Environment
Amenity and
Recreational Use
0 – 20
years
The shoreline will remain
stable in this period, and
as a result management
activities will be very
limited.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing property, land
use or human health.
A NAI policy will allow
natural processes to
dominate. There will be
continued exposure of
Purton Passage SSSI.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing landscape and
visual amenity
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
amenity value of the land
or recreational use.
20 – 50
years
The shoreline will remain
stable in this period, and
as a result management
activities will be very
limited.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing property, land
use or human health.
A NAI policy will allow
natural processes to
dominate. There will be
continued exposure of
Purton Passage SSSI.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing landscape and
visual amenity
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
amenity value of the land
or recreational use
including the canal
50 – 100
years
The shoreline will
undergo limited erosion
within this period, and as
a result management
activities will be very
limited. Due to the close
proximity of the canal
should erosion due to sea
level rise increase,
erosion protection
measures should be
considered.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing property, land
use or human health.
A NAI policy will allow
natural processes to
dominate. There will be
continued exposure of
Purton Passage SSSI.
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on
existing landscape and
visual amenity
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
historic environment. In
the long term, actions
may be required to
preserve or collect
historic information from
Purton Hulks and the
canal
Limited erosion and flood
risk will not impact on the
amenity value of the land
or recreational use
including the canal

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Smp2 part b policy statements chepstow-wye only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements chepstow-wye only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements chepstow-wye only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements chepstow-wye only_finalSevern Estuary
 
Smp2 part b policy statements cardiff only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements cardiff only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements cardiff only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements cardiff only_finalSevern Estuary
 
Nelsonquarrylanteigne 121011161032-phpapp01
Nelsonquarrylanteigne 121011161032-phpapp01Nelsonquarrylanteigne 121011161032-phpapp01
Nelsonquarrylanteigne 121011161032-phpapp01Louisette Lanteigne
 
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Presentation
Multi-Hazard Mitigation PresentationMulti-Hazard Mitigation Presentation
Multi-Hazard Mitigation PresentationTown of Dennis, MA
 
NAP Expo 2015 Session VII, II National strategies on integrating CCA, Vietnam
NAP Expo 2015 Session VII, II National strategies on integrating CCA, VietnamNAP Expo 2015 Session VII, II National strategies on integrating CCA, Vietnam
NAP Expo 2015 Session VII, II National strategies on integrating CCA, VietnamNAP Events
 
The role of land use planning in the disaster risk reduction
The role of land use planning in the disaster risk reductionThe role of land use planning in the disaster risk reduction
The role of land use planning in the disaster risk reductionGlobal Risk Forum GRFDavos
 
Urban Disaster Prevention Policies in Korea
Urban Disaster Prevention Policies in KoreaUrban Disaster Prevention Policies in Korea
Urban Disaster Prevention Policies in KoreaByoungjaeBJLee
 
Section 3215 of Title 58 of the 2012 Act 13 Oil & Gas Law in Pennsylvania
Section 3215 of Title 58 of the 2012 Act 13 Oil & Gas Law in PennsylvaniaSection 3215 of Title 58 of the 2012 Act 13 Oil & Gas Law in Pennsylvania
Section 3215 of Title 58 of the 2012 Act 13 Oil & Gas Law in PennsylvaniaMarcellus Drilling News
 
Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final
Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan FinalMangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final
Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan FinalIan Kissoon
 
Smp2 part b policy statements holms only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements holms only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements holms only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements holms only_finalSevern Estuary
 
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 1997
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 1997RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 1997
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 1997IWRS Society
 
EDA_report_Agbenowu et al
EDA_report_Agbenowu et alEDA_report_Agbenowu et al
EDA_report_Agbenowu et alMuhammad Waseem
 
Impact of climate change, land use change and residential mitigation measures...
Impact of climate change, land use change and residential mitigation measures...Impact of climate change, land use change and residential mitigation measures...
Impact of climate change, land use change and residential mitigation measures...Global Risk Forum GRFDavos
 
G.R. NO. 197754 FOR: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
G.R. NO. 197754 FOR: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN G.R. NO. 197754 FOR: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
G.R. NO. 197754 FOR: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN No to mining in Palawan
 

Tendances (20)

Smp2 part b policy statements chepstow-wye only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements chepstow-wye only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements chepstow-wye only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements chepstow-wye only_final
 
Smp2 part b policy statements cardiff only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements cardiff only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements cardiff only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements cardiff only_final
 
Nelsonquarrylanteigne 121011161032-phpapp01
Nelsonquarrylanteigne 121011161032-phpapp01Nelsonquarrylanteigne 121011161032-phpapp01
Nelsonquarrylanteigne 121011161032-phpapp01
 
Nelson quarry lanteigne
Nelson quarry lanteigneNelson quarry lanteigne
Nelson quarry lanteigne
 
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Presentation
Multi-Hazard Mitigation PresentationMulti-Hazard Mitigation Presentation
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Presentation
 
NAP Expo 2015 Session VII, II National strategies on integrating CCA, Vietnam
NAP Expo 2015 Session VII, II National strategies on integrating CCA, VietnamNAP Expo 2015 Session VII, II National strategies on integrating CCA, Vietnam
NAP Expo 2015 Session VII, II National strategies on integrating CCA, Vietnam
 
The role of land use planning in the disaster risk reduction
The role of land use planning in the disaster risk reductionThe role of land use planning in the disaster risk reduction
The role of land use planning in the disaster risk reduction
 
Land Use Framework
Land Use FrameworkLand Use Framework
Land Use Framework
 
Urban Disaster Prevention Policies in Korea
Urban Disaster Prevention Policies in KoreaUrban Disaster Prevention Policies in Korea
Urban Disaster Prevention Policies in Korea
 
Section 3215 of Title 58 of the 2012 Act 13 Oil & Gas Law in Pennsylvania
Section 3215 of Title 58 of the 2012 Act 13 Oil & Gas Law in PennsylvaniaSection 3215 of Title 58 of the 2012 Act 13 Oil & Gas Law in Pennsylvania
Section 3215 of Title 58 of the 2012 Act 13 Oil & Gas Law in Pennsylvania
 
Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final
Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan FinalMangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final
Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final
 
7ErosSediCntrlMthds
7ErosSediCntrlMthds7ErosSediCntrlMthds
7ErosSediCntrlMthds
 
Smp2 part b policy statements holms only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements holms only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements holms only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements holms only_final
 
Pennsylvania
PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
Pennsylvania
 
Baseline template 2009 18 foothills land trust 4 of 5
Baseline template 2009 18 foothills land trust 4 of 5Baseline template 2009 18 foothills land trust 4 of 5
Baseline template 2009 18 foothills land trust 4 of 5
 
Youngman Randy 2014
Youngman Randy 2014Youngman Randy 2014
Youngman Randy 2014
 
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 1997
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 1997RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 1997
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 1997
 
EDA_report_Agbenowu et al
EDA_report_Agbenowu et alEDA_report_Agbenowu et al
EDA_report_Agbenowu et al
 
Impact of climate change, land use change and residential mitigation measures...
Impact of climate change, land use change and residential mitigation measures...Impact of climate change, land use change and residential mitigation measures...
Impact of climate change, land use change and residential mitigation measures...
 
G.R. NO. 197754 FOR: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
G.R. NO. 197754 FOR: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN G.R. NO. 197754 FOR: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
G.R. NO. 197754 FOR: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
 

En vedette

The beatles karla proaño
The beatles karla proañoThe beatles karla proaño
The beatles karla proañokarlapva
 
Las redes inalámbricas
Las redes inalámbricasLas redes inalámbricas
Las redes inalámbricasEsteebaan23
 
Redes inalambricas karla
Redes inalambricas karlaRedes inalambricas karla
Redes inalambricas karlakarlapva
 
Cv s sirkar 2016.docx
Cv s sirkar  2016.docx Cv s sirkar  2016.docx
Cv s sirkar 2016.docx Shahir Sirkar
 
Las redes inalambricas
Las redes inalambricasLas redes inalambricas
Las redes inalambricasEsteebaan23
 
La tecnologia
La tecnologiaLa tecnologia
La tecnologiamateo896
 
Anonio viviano 3d illustration
Anonio viviano 3d illustrationAnonio viviano 3d illustration
Anonio viviano 3d illustrationAntonio Viviano
 

En vedette (10)

Dificultades
DificultadesDificultades
Dificultades
 
The beatles karla proaño
The beatles karla proañoThe beatles karla proaño
The beatles karla proaño
 
Las redes inalámbricas
Las redes inalámbricasLas redes inalámbricas
Las redes inalámbricas
 
Redes inalambricas
Redes inalambricasRedes inalambricas
Redes inalambricas
 
Redes inalambricas karla
Redes inalambricas karlaRedes inalambricas karla
Redes inalambricas karla
 
Cv s sirkar 2016.docx
Cv s sirkar  2016.docx Cv s sirkar  2016.docx
Cv s sirkar 2016.docx
 
Las redes inalambricas
Las redes inalambricasLas redes inalambricas
Las redes inalambricas
 
AWS intro
AWS introAWS intro
AWS intro
 
La tecnologia
La tecnologiaLa tecnologia
La tecnologia
 
Anonio viviano 3d illustration
Anonio viviano 3d illustrationAnonio viviano 3d illustration
Anonio viviano 3d illustration
 

Similaire à Smp2 part b policy statements glos-sharpness only_final

Smp2 part b policy statements caldicot only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements caldicot only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements caldicot only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements caldicot only_finalSevern Estuary
 
Smp2 part b policy statements bristol only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements bristol only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements bristol only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements bristol only_finalSevern Estuary
 
Smp2 part a main report final
Smp2 part a main report finalSmp2 part a main report final
Smp2 part a main report finalSevern Estuary
 
DEIR Resiliency Plan San Tim Canyon
DEIR Resiliency Plan San Tim CanyonDEIR Resiliency Plan San Tim Canyon
DEIR Resiliency Plan San Tim CanyonBrian Robey
 
Appendix i part b _hra_final_dec2010
Appendix i part b _hra_final_dec2010Appendix i part b _hra_final_dec2010
Appendix i part b _hra_final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
AEMA-restoration white paper-Final-r 031715
AEMA-restoration white paper-Final-r 031715AEMA-restoration white paper-Final-r 031715
AEMA-restoration white paper-Final-r 031715Megan Maxwell
 
Smp2 part b policy statements intro sections_final
Smp2 part b policy statements intro sections_finalSmp2 part b policy statements intro sections_final
Smp2 part b policy statements intro sections_finalSevern Estuary
 
Disaster risk management in cambodia
Disaster risk management in cambodiaDisaster risk management in cambodia
Disaster risk management in cambodiaThành Nguyễn
 
Traveston Dam: The Ramsar Ramifications
Traveston Dam: The Ramsar RamificationsTraveston Dam: The Ramsar Ramifications
Traveston Dam: The Ramsar Ramificationsgreatermary
 
Flood management systems
Flood management systemsFlood management systems
Flood management systemsCKMCforstudents
 
Climate Tipping Points and the Insurance Sector
Climate Tipping Points and the Insurance SectorClimate Tipping Points and the Insurance Sector
Climate Tipping Points and the Insurance SectorOpen Knowledge
 
NAP Expo 2015 Session III, II Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific Islands
NAP Expo 2015 Session III, II Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific IslandsNAP Expo 2015 Session III, II Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific Islands
NAP Expo 2015 Session III, II Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific IslandsNAP Events
 
Enhanced clu pandzo_llmh_
Enhanced clu pandzo_llmh_Enhanced clu pandzo_llmh_
Enhanced clu pandzo_llmh_Primum Nocere
 
Small Islands: Staying afloat and alive@1.5
Small Islands: Staying afloat and alive@1.5Small Islands: Staying afloat and alive@1.5
Small Islands: Staying afloat and alive@1.5ipcc-media
 
Vulnerability and Adaptation of Disaster Victims, Dzul Khaimi bin Khailani, M...
Vulnerability and Adaptation of Disaster Victims, Dzul Khaimi bin Khailani, M...Vulnerability and Adaptation of Disaster Victims, Dzul Khaimi bin Khailani, M...
Vulnerability and Adaptation of Disaster Victims, Dzul Khaimi bin Khailani, M...ESD UNU-IAS
 
Louisiana In-Lieu-Fee Wetland Mitigation Program Proposal
Louisiana In-Lieu-Fee Wetland Mitigation Program Proposal Louisiana In-Lieu-Fee Wetland Mitigation Program Proposal
Louisiana In-Lieu-Fee Wetland Mitigation Program Proposal George Howard
 

Similaire à Smp2 part b policy statements glos-sharpness only_final (20)

Smp2 part b policy statements caldicot only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements caldicot only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements caldicot only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements caldicot only_final
 
Smp2 part b policy statements bristol only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements bristol only_finalSmp2 part b policy statements bristol only_final
Smp2 part b policy statements bristol only_final
 
Smp2 part a main report final
Smp2 part a main report finalSmp2 part a main report final
Smp2 part a main report final
 
DEIR Resiliency Plan San Tim Canyon
DEIR Resiliency Plan San Tim CanyonDEIR Resiliency Plan San Tim Canyon
DEIR Resiliency Plan San Tim Canyon
 
Appendix i part b _hra_final_dec2010
Appendix i part b _hra_final_dec2010Appendix i part b _hra_final_dec2010
Appendix i part b _hra_final_dec2010
 
backgrounder_lmfls
backgrounder_lmflsbackgrounder_lmfls
backgrounder_lmfls
 
Summary lecture 2
Summary lecture 2Summary lecture 2
Summary lecture 2
 
AEMA-restoration white paper-Final-r 031715
AEMA-restoration white paper-Final-r 031715AEMA-restoration white paper-Final-r 031715
AEMA-restoration white paper-Final-r 031715
 
Smp2 part b policy statements intro sections_final
Smp2 part b policy statements intro sections_finalSmp2 part b policy statements intro sections_final
Smp2 part b policy statements intro sections_final
 
0837-Petty-WV
0837-Petty-WV0837-Petty-WV
0837-Petty-WV
 
Disaster risk management in cambodia
Disaster risk management in cambodiaDisaster risk management in cambodia
Disaster risk management in cambodia
 
Traveston Dam: The Ramsar Ramifications
Traveston Dam: The Ramsar RamificationsTraveston Dam: The Ramsar Ramifications
Traveston Dam: The Ramsar Ramifications
 
Flood management systems
Flood management systemsFlood management systems
Flood management systems
 
Climate Tipping Points and the Insurance Sector
Climate Tipping Points and the Insurance SectorClimate Tipping Points and the Insurance Sector
Climate Tipping Points and the Insurance Sector
 
NAP Expo 2015 Session III, II Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific Islands
NAP Expo 2015 Session III, II Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific IslandsNAP Expo 2015 Session III, II Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific Islands
NAP Expo 2015 Session III, II Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific Islands
 
Enhanced clu pandzo_llmh_
Enhanced clu pandzo_llmh_Enhanced clu pandzo_llmh_
Enhanced clu pandzo_llmh_
 
Small Islands: Staying afloat and alive@1.5
Small Islands: Staying afloat and alive@1.5Small Islands: Staying afloat and alive@1.5
Small Islands: Staying afloat and alive@1.5
 
Vulnerability and Adaptation of Disaster Victims, Dzul Khaimi bin Khailani, M...
Vulnerability and Adaptation of Disaster Victims, Dzul Khaimi bin Khailani, M...Vulnerability and Adaptation of Disaster Victims, Dzul Khaimi bin Khailani, M...
Vulnerability and Adaptation of Disaster Victims, Dzul Khaimi bin Khailani, M...
 
Louisiana In-Lieu-Fee Wetland Mitigation Program Proposal
Louisiana In-Lieu-Fee Wetland Mitigation Program Proposal Louisiana In-Lieu-Fee Wetland Mitigation Program Proposal
Louisiana In-Lieu-Fee Wetland Mitigation Program Proposal
 
CLUP
CLUPCLUP
CLUP
 

Plus de Severn Estuary

Appendix k metadata and bibliographic database final_dec2010
Appendix k metadata and bibliographic database final_dec2010Appendix k metadata and bibliographic database final_dec2010
Appendix k metadata and bibliographic database final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix j wfd assessment final_dec2010
Appendix j wfd assessment final_dec2010Appendix j wfd assessment final_dec2010
Appendix j wfd assessment final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix i part a sea_final_dec2010
Appendix i part a sea_final_dec2010Appendix i part a sea_final_dec2010
Appendix i part a sea_final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix i part a sea annexes_final_dec2010
Appendix i part a sea annexes_final_dec2010Appendix i part a sea annexes_final_dec2010
Appendix i part a sea annexes_final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix h economics final dec2010
Appendix h economics final dec2010Appendix h economics final dec2010
Appendix h economics final dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix g preferred management approach testing final_dec2010
Appendix g preferred management approach testing final_dec2010Appendix g preferred management approach testing final_dec2010
Appendix g preferred management approach testing final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix f policy development and appraisal final_dec2010
Appendix f policy development and appraisal final_dec2010Appendix f policy development and appraisal final_dec2010
Appendix f policy development and appraisal final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix e issues and features final_dec2010
Appendix e issues and features final_dec2010Appendix e issues and features final_dec2010
Appendix e issues and features final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix b stakeholder engagement and consultation final_dec2010
Appendix b stakeholder engagement and consultation final_dec2010Appendix b stakeholder engagement and consultation final_dec2010
Appendix b stakeholder engagement and consultation final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix d theme review final_dec2010a
Appendix d theme review final_dec2010aAppendix d theme review final_dec2010a
Appendix d theme review final_dec2010aSevern Estuary
 
Appendix c baseline understanding final_dec2010
Appendix c baseline understanding final_dec2010Appendix c baseline understanding final_dec2010
Appendix c baseline understanding final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Appendix a development of the smp2 final_dec2010
Appendix a development of the smp2 final_dec2010Appendix a development of the smp2 final_dec2010
Appendix a development of the smp2 final_dec2010Severn Estuary
 
Smp2 part c action plan final
Smp2 part c action plan finalSmp2 part c action plan final
Smp2 part c action plan finalSevern Estuary
 

Plus de Severn Estuary (13)

Appendix k metadata and bibliographic database final_dec2010
Appendix k metadata and bibliographic database final_dec2010Appendix k metadata and bibliographic database final_dec2010
Appendix k metadata and bibliographic database final_dec2010
 
Appendix j wfd assessment final_dec2010
Appendix j wfd assessment final_dec2010Appendix j wfd assessment final_dec2010
Appendix j wfd assessment final_dec2010
 
Appendix i part a sea_final_dec2010
Appendix i part a sea_final_dec2010Appendix i part a sea_final_dec2010
Appendix i part a sea_final_dec2010
 
Appendix i part a sea annexes_final_dec2010
Appendix i part a sea annexes_final_dec2010Appendix i part a sea annexes_final_dec2010
Appendix i part a sea annexes_final_dec2010
 
Appendix h economics final dec2010
Appendix h economics final dec2010Appendix h economics final dec2010
Appendix h economics final dec2010
 
Appendix g preferred management approach testing final_dec2010
Appendix g preferred management approach testing final_dec2010Appendix g preferred management approach testing final_dec2010
Appendix g preferred management approach testing final_dec2010
 
Appendix f policy development and appraisal final_dec2010
Appendix f policy development and appraisal final_dec2010Appendix f policy development and appraisal final_dec2010
Appendix f policy development and appraisal final_dec2010
 
Appendix e issues and features final_dec2010
Appendix e issues and features final_dec2010Appendix e issues and features final_dec2010
Appendix e issues and features final_dec2010
 
Appendix b stakeholder engagement and consultation final_dec2010
Appendix b stakeholder engagement and consultation final_dec2010Appendix b stakeholder engagement and consultation final_dec2010
Appendix b stakeholder engagement and consultation final_dec2010
 
Appendix d theme review final_dec2010a
Appendix d theme review final_dec2010aAppendix d theme review final_dec2010a
Appendix d theme review final_dec2010a
 
Appendix c baseline understanding final_dec2010
Appendix c baseline understanding final_dec2010Appendix c baseline understanding final_dec2010
Appendix c baseline understanding final_dec2010
 
Appendix a development of the smp2 final_dec2010
Appendix a development of the smp2 final_dec2010Appendix a development of the smp2 final_dec2010
Appendix a development of the smp2 final_dec2010
 
Smp2 part c action plan final
Smp2 part c action plan finalSmp2 part c action plan final
Smp2 part c action plan final
 

Dernier

The Dark Cloud of Global Air Pollution - Epcon
The Dark Cloud of Global Air Pollution - EpconThe Dark Cloud of Global Air Pollution - Epcon
The Dark Cloud of Global Air Pollution - EpconEpconLP
 
Item 3. Developing EPOC’s PWB related to mitigation for 2025-26
Item 3. Developing EPOC’s PWB related to mitigation for 2025-26Item 3. Developing EPOC’s PWB related to mitigation for 2025-26
Item 3. Developing EPOC’s PWB related to mitigation for 2025-26OECD Environment
 
GETting the Most Out Of Existing & New Infrastructure Via Advanced Transmissi...
GETting the Most Out Of Existing & New Infrastructure Via Advanced Transmissi...GETting the Most Out Of Existing & New Infrastructure Via Advanced Transmissi...
GETting the Most Out Of Existing & New Infrastructure Via Advanced Transmissi...World Resources Institute (WRI)
 
I MSc II Semester - Characteristics of a population.ppt
I MSc II Semester - Characteristics of a population.pptI MSc II Semester - Characteristics of a population.ppt
I MSc II Semester - Characteristics of a population.pptaigil2
 
Exploring the snake evolution (wild's gravity).pdf
Exploring the snake evolution (wild's gravity).pdfExploring the snake evolution (wild's gravity).pdf
Exploring the snake evolution (wild's gravity).pdfdrsk203
 
PPT TLE 7 and 8 Q3 AGRI CROP QUIZ 2.pptx
PPT TLE 7 and 8  Q3 AGRI CROP QUIZ 2.pptxPPT TLE 7 and 8  Q3 AGRI CROP QUIZ 2.pptx
PPT TLE 7 and 8 Q3 AGRI CROP QUIZ 2.pptxCrislynBaados
 
Monitoring songbirds' online market
Monitoring songbirds' online market Monitoring songbirds' online market
Monitoring songbirds' online market CIFOR-ICRAF
 
Best-NO1 Best Black Magic Specialist Near Me Spiritual Healer Powerful Love S...
Best-NO1 Best Black Magic Specialist Near Me Spiritual Healer Powerful Love S...Best-NO1 Best Black Magic Specialist Near Me Spiritual Healer Powerful Love S...
Best-NO1 Best Black Magic Specialist Near Me Spiritual Healer Powerful Love S...Amil baba
 
4th Earthquake Drill Narraative Report.docx
4th Earthquake Drill Narraative Report.docx4th Earthquake Drill Narraative Report.docx
4th Earthquake Drill Narraative Report.docxJeneroseBaldoza
 
Pathways to sustainable trade and system dynamic simulation
Pathways to sustainable trade and system dynamic simulationPathways to sustainable trade and system dynamic simulation
Pathways to sustainable trade and system dynamic simulationCIFOR-ICRAF
 
Save the Environment - Environ Craft
Save the Environment -     Environ CraftSave the Environment -     Environ Craft
Save the Environment - Environ Craftenvironcraft
 
Incentive Scheme for Smallholders
Incentive Scheme for Smallholders Incentive Scheme for Smallholders
Incentive Scheme for Smallholders CIFOR-ICRAF
 
Item 2. a Update from the Secretariat
Item 2. a Update from the SecretariatItem 2. a Update from the Secretariat
Item 2. a Update from the SecretariatOECD Environment
 
CSR01P3 The foundations of CSR Part 3 Social
CSR01P3 The foundations of CSR Part 3 SocialCSR01P3 The foundations of CSR Part 3 Social
CSR01P3 The foundations of CSR Part 3 SocialMatthieu Bruckert
 
Hospital Effluent Treatment System-ecoklien
Hospital Effluent Treatment System-ecoklienHospital Effluent Treatment System-ecoklien
Hospital Effluent Treatment System-ecoklienecoklien
 
How Long Does It Take Jackfruit To Bear Fruit?
How Long Does It Take Jackfruit To Bear Fruit?How Long Does It Take Jackfruit To Bear Fruit?
How Long Does It Take Jackfruit To Bear Fruit?EvergladesFarm
 
EC-funded Projects and CAPs Webinar slides
EC-funded Projects and CAPs Webinar slidesEC-funded Projects and CAPs Webinar slides
EC-funded Projects and CAPs Webinar slidesweADAPT
 
Item 2.b The transformative effects of the Paris Agreement
Item 2.b The transformative effects of the Paris AgreementItem 2.b The transformative effects of the Paris Agreement
Item 2.b The transformative effects of the Paris AgreementOECD Environment
 
Capacity Building in oil palm trade and sustainability
Capacity Building in oil palm trade and sustainabilityCapacity Building in oil palm trade and sustainability
Capacity Building in oil palm trade and sustainabilityCIFOR-ICRAF
 

Dernier (20)

The Dark Cloud of Global Air Pollution - Epcon
The Dark Cloud of Global Air Pollution - EpconThe Dark Cloud of Global Air Pollution - Epcon
The Dark Cloud of Global Air Pollution - Epcon
 
Item 3. Developing EPOC’s PWB related to mitigation for 2025-26
Item 3. Developing EPOC’s PWB related to mitigation for 2025-26Item 3. Developing EPOC’s PWB related to mitigation for 2025-26
Item 3. Developing EPOC’s PWB related to mitigation for 2025-26
 
GETting the Most Out Of Existing & New Infrastructure Via Advanced Transmissi...
GETting the Most Out Of Existing & New Infrastructure Via Advanced Transmissi...GETting the Most Out Of Existing & New Infrastructure Via Advanced Transmissi...
GETting the Most Out Of Existing & New Infrastructure Via Advanced Transmissi...
 
I MSc II Semester - Characteristics of a population.ppt
I MSc II Semester - Characteristics of a population.pptI MSc II Semester - Characteristics of a population.ppt
I MSc II Semester - Characteristics of a population.ppt
 
Exploring the snake evolution (wild's gravity).pdf
Exploring the snake evolution (wild's gravity).pdfExploring the snake evolution (wild's gravity).pdf
Exploring the snake evolution (wild's gravity).pdf
 
PPT TLE 7 and 8 Q3 AGRI CROP QUIZ 2.pptx
PPT TLE 7 and 8  Q3 AGRI CROP QUIZ 2.pptxPPT TLE 7 and 8  Q3 AGRI CROP QUIZ 2.pptx
PPT TLE 7 and 8 Q3 AGRI CROP QUIZ 2.pptx
 
Monitoring songbirds' online market
Monitoring songbirds' online market Monitoring songbirds' online market
Monitoring songbirds' online market
 
Best-NO1 Best Black Magic Specialist Near Me Spiritual Healer Powerful Love S...
Best-NO1 Best Black Magic Specialist Near Me Spiritual Healer Powerful Love S...Best-NO1 Best Black Magic Specialist Near Me Spiritual Healer Powerful Love S...
Best-NO1 Best Black Magic Specialist Near Me Spiritual Healer Powerful Love S...
 
4th Earthquake Drill Narraative Report.docx
4th Earthquake Drill Narraative Report.docx4th Earthquake Drill Narraative Report.docx
4th Earthquake Drill Narraative Report.docx
 
International Day of Forests 2024
International Day of Forests 2024International Day of Forests 2024
International Day of Forests 2024
 
Pathways to sustainable trade and system dynamic simulation
Pathways to sustainable trade and system dynamic simulationPathways to sustainable trade and system dynamic simulation
Pathways to sustainable trade and system dynamic simulation
 
Save the Environment - Environ Craft
Save the Environment -     Environ CraftSave the Environment -     Environ Craft
Save the Environment - Environ Craft
 
Incentive Scheme for Smallholders
Incentive Scheme for Smallholders Incentive Scheme for Smallholders
Incentive Scheme for Smallholders
 
Item 2. a Update from the Secretariat
Item 2. a Update from the SecretariatItem 2. a Update from the Secretariat
Item 2. a Update from the Secretariat
 
CSR01P3 The foundations of CSR Part 3 Social
CSR01P3 The foundations of CSR Part 3 SocialCSR01P3 The foundations of CSR Part 3 Social
CSR01P3 The foundations of CSR Part 3 Social
 
Hospital Effluent Treatment System-ecoklien
Hospital Effluent Treatment System-ecoklienHospital Effluent Treatment System-ecoklien
Hospital Effluent Treatment System-ecoklien
 
How Long Does It Take Jackfruit To Bear Fruit?
How Long Does It Take Jackfruit To Bear Fruit?How Long Does It Take Jackfruit To Bear Fruit?
How Long Does It Take Jackfruit To Bear Fruit?
 
EC-funded Projects and CAPs Webinar slides
EC-funded Projects and CAPs Webinar slidesEC-funded Projects and CAPs Webinar slides
EC-funded Projects and CAPs Webinar slides
 
Item 2.b The transformative effects of the Paris Agreement
Item 2.b The transformative effects of the Paris AgreementItem 2.b The transformative effects of the Paris Agreement
Item 2.b The transformative effects of the Paris Agreement
 
Capacity Building in oil palm trade and sustainability
Capacity Building in oil palm trade and sustainabilityCapacity Building in oil palm trade and sustainability
Capacity Building in oil palm trade and sustainability
 

Smp2 part b policy statements glos-sharpness only_final

  • 1. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 1 GLOUCESTER TO SHARPNESS This Theme area contains the Policy Units SHAR 1, SHAR 2, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, SHAR 7 and SHAR 8. It starts at the drain from Long Brook and ends at the south of Sharpness Docks. The Key Policy Drivers in this area are: • International nature conservation sites – Severn Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites; • Critical infrastructure – railway line, electricity transmission network, sewage treatment works, Sharpness docks.
  • 2. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 2
  • 3. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 3 Policy Unit: SHAR 1 – Severn Farm to Wick’s Green (east bank of the River Severn)
  • 4. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 4 Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan: Epoch Preferred Policy Comments 0 to 20 years (2025) HTL The Short Term policy for this unit is Hold the Line. Prior to MR in the second epoch, existing defences should be maintained. .. HTL is not intended to allow new defences to be built along currently undefended parts of the shoreline in this area. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. 20 to 50 years (2055) MR The medium term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment. The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this epoch and a new, realigned defence should be constructed to create new intertidal habitat. The position, size and materials of new defences should be considered in detail to ensure MR does not impact on the risk of flooding to developed areas, internal drainage or the linked Policy Units (GLO 6, GLO 7, GLO 8 and SHAR 2). The precise location and type of defence should be determined by the SEFRMS. This should also determine whether MR should be phased over this epoch and the next. MR will manage the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion to assets behind the new defences. Land, nature conservation and historic environment features in front of the new line of defences or in areas of NAI will be at increased risk of flooding and erosion. Adaptation actions should be considered and implemented. The habitat created in this Policy Unit will help compensate for areas lost elsewhere in the estuary and help maintain/improve the condition of the European protected sites. MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences. 50 to 100 years (2105) MR The long term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment. New realigned defences should be maintained. If MR is being undertaken in a phased manner, the second phase should take place in this epoch. MR will manage the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion to assets behind the new defences. MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences.
  • 5. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 5 Economics Policy Unit Existing SMP1 Policy Time Period (epoch) SMP2 Assessment 0- 20 20- 50 50- 100 Preferred Plan Present Value Damages Preferred Plan Present Value Defence Costs SHAR 1 HTL HTL MR MR £24m (GLO6-8, SHAR1-2 total) £10m (GLO6-8, SHAR1-2 total) The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 6, GLO 7, GLO 8, SHAR 1, and SHAR 2, but the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is low. Where the BCR is low, schemes may be less likely to receive public funding and it may be necessary to find funding from other sources. The costs and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
  • 6. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 6 Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 1 Policy Unit Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 0 – 20 years The existing defence line should be maintained until a new realigned defence line is created in the next epoch. The existing flood defences will continue to reduce the risk to existing properties and land in this epoch. There will be limited impact in this epoch as the existing defence line gradually deteriorates over time. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use. 20 – 50 years Defences are expected to come to the end of their serviceable life. Prior to complete failure of the existing defences, a new realigned earth embankment should be established to allow habitat creation and to reduce the risk of impacts from fluvial flooding by increasing floodwater conveyance A total of 156 Ha of agricultural land will be undefended and will be subject to frequent flood risk. Erosion in this section of the estuary is limited. Realigned defences will manage the risk to properties and land behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Impacts on property and land, and mitigation actions will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 156 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. However there may be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. The creation of intertidal habitat will replace existing agricultural land, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re-alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Impacts on historic environment assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences. . Impacts on recreational assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences
  • 7. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 7 Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 50 – 100 years The new defence line should be maintained. The second phase of MR should take place in this epoch if a phased approach is being implemented Realigned defences will manage the risk to properties and land behind new defences. A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 156 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. However there may be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. In the long term sea level rise will result in more frequent flooding of the seaward side of the defence line and creation of intertidal habitat, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re-alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Impacts on historic environment assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences.
  • 8. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 8 Policy Unit: SHAR 2 – Wick’s Green to Longley Green (east bank of the River Severn)
  • 9. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 9 Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan: Epoch Preferred Policy Comments 0 to 20 years (2025) HTL The Short Term policy for this unit is Hold the Line. Prior to MR in the second epoch, existing defences should be maintained. HTL is not intended to allow new defences to be built along currently undefended parts of the shoreline in this Policy Unit. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. 20 to 50 years (2055) MR The medium term policy for this unit is a Managed Realignment policy. The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this epoch and a new, realigned defence should be constructed to enable new intertidal habitat to be created. The position, size and materials of new defences should be considered in detail to ensure MR does not impact on the risk of flooding to developed areas, internal drainage or the linked Policy Units (GLO 6, GLO 7, GLO 8 and SHAR 1). Improvements to the way flooding from river sources flows through the area (flood conveyance) should also be considered. The precise location and type of defence should be determined by the SEFRMS. MR will manage the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion to assets behind the new defences. Land, nature conservation and historic environment features in front of the new line of defences or in areas of NAI will be at increased risk of flooding and erosion. Adaptation actions should be considered and implemented. The habitat created in this Policy Unit will help compensate for areas lost elsewhere in the estuary and help maintain/improve the condition of the European protected sites. MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences. 50 to 100 years (2105) HTL The long term policy for this unit is a Hold The Line policy. New realigned defences should be maintained. HTL will manage the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion to assets behind the new defences. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise.
  • 10. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 10 Economics Policy Unit Existing SMP1 Policy Time Period (epoch) SMP2 Assessment 0- 20 20- 50 50- 100 Preferred Plan Present Value Damages Preferred Plan Present Value Defence Costs SHAR 2 HTL HTL MR HTL £24m (GLO6-8, SHAR1-2 total) £10m (GLO6-8, SHAR1-2 total) The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 6, GLO 7, GLO 8, SHAR 1, and SHAR 2, but the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is low. Where the BCR is low, schemes may be less likely to receive public funding and it may be necessary to find funding from other sources. The costs and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
  • 11. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 11 Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 2 Policy Unit Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 0 – 20 years The existing defence line will should be maintained until a new realigned defence is created. The existing flood defences will continue to reduce the risk to existing properties and land in this epoch. There will be limited impact in this epoch as the existing defence line is maintained. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use. 20 – 50 years Prior to the failure of the existing defences, a new earth embankment should be established A total of 352 Ha of agricultural land will be undefended and will be subject to frequent flood risk. Erosion in this section of the estuary is limited. Realigned defences will manage the risk to properties and land behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Impacts on property and land, and mitigation actions will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences. A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 352 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. There will be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. The creation of intertidal habitat will replace existing agricultural land, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re- alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Impacts on historic environment assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences. Impacts on recreational assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences
  • 12. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 12 Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 50 – 100 years The new defence line should be maintained. Realigned defences will manage the risk to properties and land behind new defences. A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 352 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. There will be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. In the long term sea level rise will result in more frequent flooding of the seaward side of the defence line and creation of intertidal habitat, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re- alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Impacts on historic environment assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences.
  • 13. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 13 Policy Unit: SHAR 3 – Longley Green to Overton Lane (east bank of the River Severn)
  • 14. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 14 Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan: Epoch Preferred Policy Comments 0 to 20 years (2025) HTL The Short Term policy for this unit is Hold The Line. The current defences are expected to remain in place for this epoch but may require some reconstruction / extensive works during this epoch. HTL will manage the risk of impacts from flooding in this epoch. It is part of 8 linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). Actions should take account of potential impacts in all linked areas. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. 20 to 50 years (2055) HTL The medium term policy for this unit is Hold The Line. The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this epoch. HTL recommends that defences are replaced. The position, size and materials of new defences should be considered in detail to ensure actions take account of potential impacts on linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). The precise location and type of defence should be determined by the SEFRMS. HTL will manage the risk of impacts from flooding. Where there are currently no defences, investigation should be carried out to find out if new defences are needed or if other actions could reduce the risk of flooding from coastal flooding. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. 50 to 100 years (2105) HTL The long term policy for this unit is Hold The Line. New defences should be maintained. HTL will manage the risk of impacts from flooding in this and linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. Economics Policy Unit Existing SMP1 Policy Time Period (epoch) SMP2 Assessment 0- 20 20- 50 50- 100 Preferred Plan Present Value Damages Preferred Plan Present Value Defence Costs SHAR 3 HTL HTL HTL HTL £124m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) £23m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) The preferred policy is economically viable for this unit. The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
  • 15. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 15 Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 3 Policy Unit Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 0 – 20 years The current earth embankment defences are expected to come to the end of their serviceable life during the next epoch but may require reconstruction / extensive works during this epoch. Defences will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to existing property, land use or human health. A HTL policy will not significantly impact on nature conservation sites. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Defences are likely to come to the end of their serviceable life in the next epoch but may require reconstruction / extensive works during this epoch. Increased height of defences or change in defence construction materials will affect local landscape - increasing presence in the landscape and disrupting views. Defences will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to the historic environment Defences will manage the risk to amenity or recreational value of the land. 20 – 50 years The current earth embankment defences are expected to come to the end of their serviceable life during this epoch and should be replaced. A maintenance programme should be established to ensure the defences continue to function. Defences will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to existing property, land use or human health. Coastal squeeze may occur which will result in loss of intertidal habitats. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Defences are likely to come to the end of their serviceable life in this epoch. Increased height of defences or change in defence construction materials will affect local landscape - increasing presence in the landscape and disrupting views. Defences will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to the historic environment Defences will manage the risk to amenity or recreational value of the land. 50 – 100 years An on-going maintenance programme should be established including the monitoring of shoreline erosion as sea level rise increases. Defences will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to existing property, land use or human health. Coastal squeeze may occur which will result in loss of intertidal habitats. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Increased height of defences or change in defence construction materials will affect local landscape - increasing presence in the landscape and disrupting views. Defences will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to the historic environment Defences will manage the risk to amenity or recreational value of the land.
  • 16. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 16 Policy Unit: SHAR 4 – Overton Lane to Hock Cliff (east bank of the River Severn)
  • 17. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 17 Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan: Epoch Preferred Policy Comments 0 to 20 years (2025) HTL The Short Term policy for this unit is Hold the Line. Prior to MR in the second epoch, existing defences should be maintained. Current defences may require extensive maintenance works. HTL is not intended to allow new defences to be built along currently undefended parts of the shoreline in this Policy Unit. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. 20 to 50 years (2055) MR The medium term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment. The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this epoch and a new, realigned defence should be constructed to enable new intertidal habitat to be created. The position, size and materials of new defences should be considered in detail. MR should contribute to reducing the risk of flooding in linked Policy Units, not increase it (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). Improvements to the way flooding from river sources flows through the area (flood conveyance) should also be considered. The precise location and type of defence should be determined by the SEFRMS. MR manages the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion behind the new defences. Land, nature conservation and historic environment features in front of the new line of defences will be at increased risk of flooding and erosion. Adaptation actions should be considered and implemented where appropriate. The habitat created in this Policy Unit will help compensate for areas lost elsewhere in the estuary and help maintain/improve the condition of the European protected sites. MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences. 50 to 100 years (2105) MR The long term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment. New realigned defences should be maintained. A second phase of could be undertaken in this epoch to further set back defences. MR manages the risk of impacts from flooding and erosion behind the new defences. MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences.
  • 18. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 18 Economics Policy Unit Existing SMP1 Policy Time Period (epoch) SMP2 Assessment 0- 20 20- 50 50- 100 Preferred Plan Present Value Damages Preferred Plan Present Value Defence Costs SHAR 4 HTL HTL MR MR £124m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) £23m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
  • 19. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 19 Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 4 Policy Unit Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 0 – 20 years The existing defence line should be maintained until a new realigned defence line is created. The existing flood defences will continue to reduce the risk to existing properties and land in this epoch. There will be limited impact in this epoch as the existing defence line gradually deteriorates over time. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use. 20 – 50 years Prior to complete failure of the existing earth embankment, new defences, should be established to allow habitat creation and to reduce the impact from fluvial flooding by increasing floodwater conveyance. A total of 409 Ha of agricultural land will be undefended and will be subject to frequent flood risk. Erosion in this section of the estuary is limited. Realigned defences will manage the risk to properties and land behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Impacts on property and land, and mitigation actions will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences. A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 409 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. There will be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. The creation of intertidal habitat will replace existing agricultural land, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re- alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Impacts on historic environment assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences. Impacts on recreational assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences
  • 20. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 20 Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 50 – 100 years The new defence line should be maintained. A second phase of MR could be undertaken to further set back defences and create more intertidal habitat. Realigned defences will manage the risk to properties and land behind new defences. A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 409 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. There will be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. In the long term sea level rise will result in more frequent flooding of the seaward side of the defence line and creation of intertidal habitat, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re- alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Impacts on historic environment assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences.
  • 21. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 21 Policy Unit: SHAR 5 – Hock Cliff (east bank of the River Severn)
  • 22. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 22 Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan: Epoch Preferred Policy Comments 0 to 20 years (2025) NAI The short term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention. High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue on Hock Cliff (RIGS) with little / no impact to any assets along the top of the cliff. 20 to 50 years (2055) NAI The medium term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention. High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue on Hock Cliff (RIGS) with little / no impact to any assets along the top of the cliff. 50 to 100 years (2105) NAI The long term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention. High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue on Hock Cliff (RIGS) with little / no impact to any assets along the top of the cliff. In the long term, the rate of erosion should be monitored. If the rate of erosion increases, or assets are at risk, action should be considered. Any actions should take account of impacts on linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). Economics Policy Unit Existing SMP1 Policy Time Period (epoch) SMP2 Assessment 0- 20 20- 50 50- 100 Preferred Plan Present Value Damages Preferred Plan Present Value Defence Costs SHAR 5 Do nothing NAI NAI NAI £124m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) £23m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) The preferred policy has no economic impact in this Policy Unit. The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units, not in SHAR 5.
  • 23. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 23 Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 5 Policy Unit Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 0 – 20 years The cliffs will remain stable in this period, and as a result management activities will be very limited. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing property, land use or human health. A NAI policy will allow the continued exposure of Hock Cliffs Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use. 20 – 50 years The cliffs will undergo limited erosion within this period, and as a result management activities will be very limited. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing property, land use or human health. A NAI policy will allow the continued exposure of Hock Cliffs. High ground will prevent roll back of habitats – intertidal habitat lost to coastal squeeze. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use. 50 – 100 years The cliffs will undergo limited erosion within this period, and as a result management activities will be very limited. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing property, land use or human health. A NAI policy will allow the continued exposure of Hock Cliffs. High ground will prevent roll back of habitats – intertidal habitat lost to coastal squeeze. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use.
  • 24. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 24 Policy Unit: SHAR 6 – Hock Cliff to Frampton Pill (east bank of River Severn)
  • 25. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 25 Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan: Epoch Preferred Policy Comments 0 to 20 years (2025) HTL The short term policy for this unit is Hold The Line. The current defences are expected to remain in place for this epoch but may require some reconstruction / extensive works during this epoch. HTL manages the risk of impacts from flooding in this epoch. Actions should take account of potential impacts in all linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. 20 to 50 years (2055) HTL The medium term policy for this unit is Hold The Line. The existing defences will come to the end of their serviceable life in this epoch. HTL recommends that defences are replaced. The position, size and materials of new defences should be considered in detail to ensure actions take account of potential impacts on linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, and SHAR 7). The role that the Gloucester to Sharpness Canal can play in flood management should be considered in determining the type and position of new defences. The precise location and type of defence should be determined by the SEFRMS. HTL manages the risk of impacts from flooding in this and linked Policy Units. Where there are currently no defences, investigation should be carried out to find out if new defences are needed or if other actions could reduce the risk of flooding from coastal flooding. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. 50 to 100 years (2105) HTL The long term policy for this unit is Hold The Line. New defences should be maintained. HTL manages the risk of impacts from flooding in this and linked Policy Units (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6, and SHAR 7). HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise.
  • 26. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 26 Economics Policy Unit Existing SMP1 Policy Time Period (epoch) SMP2 Assessment 0- 20 20- 50 50- 100 Preferred Plan Present Value Damages Preferred Plan Present Value Defence Costs SHAR 6 HTL HTL HTL HTL £124m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) £23m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) The preferred policy for this unit is economically viable. The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
  • 27. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 27 Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHA 6 Policy Unit Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 0 – 20 years The current earth embankment defences are expected to come to the end of their serviceable life during the next epoch but may require replacement / extensive works during this epoch. Defences will manage the risk of impacts to existing property, land use or human health. A HTL policy will not impact the nature conservation sites during this time period. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Defences are likely to come to the end of their serviceable life in the next epoch but may require reconstruction / extensive works during this epoch. Increased height of defences or change in defence construction materials will affect local landscape - increasing presence in the landscape and disrupting views. Defences will manage the risk of impacts to the historic environment Defences will manage the risk to amenity or recreational value of the land and the canal 20 – 50 years The current earth embankment defences are expected to come to the end of their serviceable life during this epoch and should be replaced. A maintenance programme should be established to ensure the defences afford protection to the assets at risk Defences will manage the risk of impacts to existing property, land use or human health. A HTL policy may result in coastal squeeze as sea level rise increases. A HTL policy will manage the potential for saline intrusion of Frampton Pools. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Defences are likely to come to the end of their serviceable life in this epoch and should be reconstructed. Increased height of defences or change in defence construction materials will affect local landscape - increasing presence in the landscape and disrupting views. Defences will manage the risk of impacts to the historic environment Defences will manage the risk to amenity or recreational value of the land and the canal 50 – 100 years An on-going maintenance programme should be established including the monitoring of shoreline erosion as sea level rise increases. Defences will manage the risk of impacts to existing property, land use or human health. A HTL policy may result in coastal squeeze as sea level rise increases. A HTL policy will manage the potential for saline intrusion of Frampton Pools. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. Increased height of defences or change in defence construction materials will affect local landscape - increasing presence in the landscape and disrupting views. Defences will manage the risk of impacts to the historic environment Defences will manage the risk to amenity or recreational value of the land and the canal
  • 28. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 28 Policy Unit: SHAR 7 – Frampton Pill to Royal Drift outfall (east bank of the River Severn)
  • 29. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 29 Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan: Epoch Preferred Policy Comments 0 to 20 years (2025) MR The Short Term policy for this unit is Managed Realignment. The current defences are expected to remain in place for this epoch and gradually deteriorate. A new realigned defence line should be created to enable new intertidal habitat to be created. Replacing defences in their current location is not considered appropriate as it would result in coastal squeeze. MR will manage the risk of impacts from flooding to assets behind the new defences. The position, size and materials of new defences should be considered in detail by the SEFRMS. MR should contribute to reducing the risk of impacts from flooding in linked Policy Units, not increase it (GLO3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, and SHAR 6). The role that the Gloucester to Sharpness Canal can play in flood management should be considered. Land, nature conservation and historic environment features in front of the new line of defences will be at increased risk of flooding and erosion - adaptation actions should be considered / implemented where appropriate. The habitat created in this Policy Unit will help compensate for areas lost elsewhere in the estuary and help maintain/improve the condition of the European protected sites. MR does not guarantee funding to build or maintain new realigned defences. 20 to 50 years (2055) HTL The medium term policy for this unit is Hold The Line. New realigned defences should be maintained. HTL manages the risk of impacts from flooding to assets behind the new defences. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise. 50 to 100 years (2105) HTL The long term policy for this unit is Hold The line. New realigned defences should be maintained. HTL manages the risk of impacts from flooding to assets behind the new defences. HTL does not guarantee funding to build or maintain current or future defences or to counter sea level rise.
  • 30. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 30 Economics Policy Unit Existing SMP1 Policy Time Period (epoch) SMP2 Assessment 0- 20 20- 50 50- 100 Preferred Plan Present Value Damages Preferred Plan Present Value Defence Costs SHAR 7 HTL (or Realignment) MR HTL HTL £124m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) £23m (GLO3-5, SHAR3-7 total) The preferred policy for this unit is economically viable. The preferred policy is economically viable for the linked Policy Units of GLO 3, GLO 4, GLO 5, SHAR 3, SHAR 4, SHAR 5, SHAR 6 and SHAR 7. The costs and damages of the preferred policy in the table above relate to actions taken in linked policy units.
  • 31. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 31 Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 7 Policy Unit Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 0 – 20 years The existing defence line will not be maintained and a new set back defence line will be created to allow habitat creation and to reduce the impact from fluvial flooding by increasing floodwater conveyance.. A total of 187 Ha of agricultural land will be undefended and will subject to frequent flooding. Erosion in this area of the estuary is limited. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts to properties and land behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Impacts on property and land, and mitigation actions will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences. A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 187 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. There will be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. The creation of intertidal habitat will replace existing agricultural land, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re-alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Impacts on historic environment assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences. Impacts on recreational assets, and mitigation actions, will need to be considered in determining realignment of defences 20 – 50 years The new defence line should be maintained. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts to properties and land behind new defences. A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 187 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. There will be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. The creation of intertidal habitat will replace existing agricultural land, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re-alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences.
  • 32. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 32 Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 50 – 100 years The new defence line should be maintained. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts to properties and land behind new defences. A MR policy will allow the creation of approximately 187 Ha of additional intertidal habitat. There will be loss of terrestrial habitats as intertidal habitats roll back. Works should take account of possible environmental impacts and the need for an EIA. In the long term sea level rise will result in more frequent flooding of the seaward side of the defence line and creation of intertidal habitat, altering the landscape. Realigned defences will manage the risk of impacts to historic environment assets behind new defences. Assets in front of realigned defences will be at risk from inundation. Managed re-alignment is likely to adversely impact on a limited number of listed buildings. Realigned defences will manage the risk on the amenity value or recreational use of the land behind new defences.
  • 33. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 33 Policy Unit: SHAR 8 – Royal Drift outfall to Sharpness Docks (east bank of the River Severn)
  • 34. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 34 Preferred Policies to Implement the Plan: Epoch Preferred Policy Comments 0 to 20 years (2025) NAI The short term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention. High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue. This Policy Unit is not linked to any others. 20 to 50 years (2055) NAI The medium term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention. High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue. This Policy Unit is not linked to any others. 50 to 100 years (2105) NAI The long term policy for this unit is No Active Intervention. High ground and hard geology naturally limit the risk of coastal flooding and erosion in this Policy Unit. NAI will allow natural processes to continue. In the long term, the rate of erosion should be monitored. If the rate of erosion increases, or assets are at risk, action should be considered. This Policy Unit is not linked to any others. Economics Policy Unit Existing SMP1 Policy Time Period (epoch) SMP2 Assessment 0- 20 20- 50 50- 100 Preferred Plan Present Value Damages Preferred Plan Present Value Defence Costs SHAR 8 HTL NAI NAI NAI Minimal Minimal The preferred policy has no economic impact. This Policy Unit is not linked to any others.
  • 35. The above provides the local details in respect of the SMP-wide policy presented in the preceding sections of this Plan document. These details must be read in the context of the wider-scales issues and policy implications, as reported therein. Severn Estuary SMP2 Review – Final Report 35 Predicted Implication of the Preferred Plan for the SHAR 8 Policy Unit Time Period Management Activities Property, Land Use and Human Health Nature Conservation – including Earth Heritage, Geology and Biodiversity Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Historic Environment Amenity and Recreational Use 0 – 20 years The shoreline will remain stable in this period, and as a result management activities will be very limited. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing property, land use or human health. A NAI policy will allow natural processes to dominate. There will be continued exposure of Purton Passage SSSI. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use. 20 – 50 years The shoreline will remain stable in this period, and as a result management activities will be very limited. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing property, land use or human health. A NAI policy will allow natural processes to dominate. There will be continued exposure of Purton Passage SSSI. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use including the canal 50 – 100 years The shoreline will undergo limited erosion within this period, and as a result management activities will be very limited. Due to the close proximity of the canal should erosion due to sea level rise increase, erosion protection measures should be considered. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing property, land use or human health. A NAI policy will allow natural processes to dominate. There will be continued exposure of Purton Passage SSSI. Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on existing landscape and visual amenity Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the historic environment. In the long term, actions may be required to preserve or collect historic information from Purton Hulks and the canal Limited erosion and flood risk will not impact on the amenity value of the land or recreational use including the canal