Coastal Erosion Report Part III

PART III

Consideration of the interests affected by Coastal Erosion, or likely to be so affected in the foreseeable future 23. As in the Jolliffe Report, the Reporting Boards consider that geographically this Report to Tynwald should properly confine itself to the northern part of the Isle of Man, but specifically from the area of Glen Mooar, Michael, to north of the Mooragh at Ramsey, that being the stretch of coastline which is made up principally of sands or gravels, often in cliffs, which are subject to, or likely to suffer, erosion by action of the sea, combined with other eroding factors of which wind action and particularly land drainage (natural or artificial) are the most important. 24. It is believed that erosion outside this stretch of coast is confined to short, specific, isolated localities, and where it does occur, it is nearly always in the form of collapsing rocky cliffs to which the action of the sea is not usually the main or even a significant contributory erosive factor. Where, however, in any particular "southern" locality, true coast erosion by sea-action does occur (by reason of the existence of sandy or loose-gravel cliffs), the principles and recommendations set out in this Part and in the remainder of this Report are considered to be applicable in principle to any such sites just as they are to the more obviously affected northern coast, except that in the southern "isolated" erosion localities, where they occur between bluffs of rock, the range of economic options for dealing with the problem may be greater than in the "dynamic" extensive system of erosion and accretion which occurs over the length of the northern coastline, west and east, from Michael to Ramsey. Any such locality that might be considered for protection would need to be individually assessed as to the main cause of the coastal problem at that point. 25. The main areas affected by coastal erosion are, then, from the coast south of Kirk Michael via the Point of Ayre to north of Ramsey, and consequently it is the Boards of local Commissioners, representing the people of the parishes and villages in the sheadings of Michael and Ayre which naturally express the most concern with the effects of coastal erosion. Bride Commissioners in particular have expressed their concern about the erosion which affects the farmland and properties along the east coast of the Parish. It is understandable that the Boards of Commissioners should be so concerned, and require action from Central Government, because they have the best interests of the local communities at heart and yet themselves do not have the financial or administrative resources or even perhaps the legal powers to tackle the problem of erosion themselves. Naturally, they look to the main local Government administration in the Isle of Man, that is the Local Government Board, to tackle the problem, or they look to the Harbour Board to protect the coasts on the grounds that erosion is caused by the sea and the Harbour Board, in common belief, "controls" the sea, or is popularly deemed to be "responsible" for its action. 26. Unfortunately, the people affected might feel that Government, particularly in the guise of the Harbour Board, has, apparently, not played a modern role equivalent to that of King Canute, to keep back the waves, even in the area of Kirk Michael where (there is reason to believe) the most serious erosion problem exists from the point of view of Government itself. It is in this area, especially, south of Orrisdale Head, where the population and - 29 - - 30 - public utilities, not to mention fairly level farmland, are channelled into a relatively narrow cliff-top area between mountains and sea, a cliff-top which is gradually narrowing. Perhaps the worst effects of erosion are to be found at the seaward opening of the main "gulleys" or glens which carry significant streams - such as Glen Mooar, Glen Wyllin, Glen Dallyre, and Orrisdale beach. 27. If one is to look for "vital interests" affected by the erosion of the northern coast, one will naturally tend to concentrate one's attention on the west coast around Michael, and the east coast of Bride and Lexayre parishes - where public representations, and scientific studies, suggest that erosion is, in those areas, clearly seen as detrimental to public or private interests, or to both. 28. The third requirement set out in the Tynwald Resolution apparently presumes that persons are "vitally affected", by erosion, and that the Government is unable to protect the whole of the coastline. As can be seen from the report by Dr. Jolliffe, Government is without question unable to protect the whole of the coastline, not only because of the enormous expense that this would involve, but also it is doubtful whether it could in any practicable way be completely protected in view of the contribution to erosion by wind, drainage, and even land use. It is necessary to consider what interests are affected by erosion and to what extent the effects on such interests are likely to be "vital" to them. 29. The Reporting Boards recognise that whilst coastal erosion does not appear to threaten the interests of the Harbour Board itself, the interests of the Highway and Transport Board, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Local Government Board are affected, or are likely to be affected, as may be the interests of certain other Boards and various private land and property owners. It is thought that it is true to say that no entire village or entire community is threatened by erosion for the foreseeable future, though this would depend on the cliff recession rates over a very long period of time. It is not considered likely that the Island will suffer any villages being "lost" to the sea during the next century or so. But here we are to consider the present day threat of coastal erosion, over the next few decades, given existing and foreseeable technology and financial resources. And in this perspective, what we are concerned with is the sea "nibbling away" at the edges of communities, at the edges of farmland, at communications between communities and farms, or even at the occasional farmhouse, private dwelling, or public installation. The Parish Commissioners of affected areas understandably, therefore, see their citizens' interests being affected, to some degree, by erosion, and also understandably, they will tend to see their citizens' interests as being "vitally affected." 30. The Reporting Boards consider that it is for Tynwald and local Commissioners to assess whether an interest affected by erosion is "vitally affected", but for the purposes of this Report, given the present and foreseeable future pattern of coastal erosion, and the financial resources of the Island, and the economic and social effects of that present and foreseeable pattern, together with certain remedial strategies that might be taken, the Reporting Boards consider that it would be stretching a point to argue that the interests affected are "vitally affected" - except perhaps in a few isolated cases where a dwelling is demonstrably at risk from the sea, within the next few decades. 31. In the opinion of the Reporting Boards, in many, if not most cases, erosion is more of a nuisance value, perhaps involving minor economic loss of pasture and re-siting of fences (for example), and that this assessment will be valid over the next fifty years. 32. It is, however, recognised by the Reporting Boards that loss of the "Manx soil" to the sea is itself a loss (quite irrespective of economic or social cost) which some will see as a highly emotive issue of great concern to all those who treasure the Island heritage, and on "heritage" grounds alone they will propose that the "vital interest" of the nation is at stake and all steps should be taken, at whatever cost, to ensure that no more territory of the Island is lost to the sea. The Reporting Boards, whilst understanding such feelings, regret they they would be unable to recommend to Tynwald that the loss of territory - whether it be of "Island" or "Parish" significance, be a sound reason to incur expenditure to minimise such loss, except where some substantial economic or social consequence of erosion also justified expenditure to avoid depletion of territory. It should be remembered, that "soil" eroded is usually re-deposited elsewhere on the Manx coast; and an overall loss of Manx - or even parish - territory, is not necessarily a result. "One man's loss" may be "another man's gain" in the north of the Isle of Man for centuries to come. It should also be remembered that elsewhere on the Island the Harbour Board undertakes schemes of reclamation in association with recreational and harbour operations thereby adding to the territory. 33. The pattern of coastal erosion affects, indeed, "bites into" land which is in private hands. Public land or utilities are at present hardly affected, though may become affected in the not too distant future, mainly roads and whatever pipes or cables are laid under, over or alongside them. However, it is not the purpose of this Report to evaluate each and every incidence of erosion on property in private ownership, but rather to assess what Government (particularly Central Government) might do in principle to identify such property at risk, and to protect its own property or the property of private concerns and individuals and families. In this context, erosion on private property can be regarded as of "interest" to some Government Departments or agency, and the interests affected are now to be considered in terms of Departmental or Board responsibilities. In this way it may be possible for Tynwald to clearly consider and determine what action, if any individual Government Departments or Boards might undertake or accept as their responsibility, and what interests, if any, are likely to be considered as "vitably affected." 34. Interests of the Harbour Board The shores are vested in the Harbour Board up to high water mark of medium tide which includes therefore most of the beaches. However, coastal erosion takes place above this level, that is to say, on land which is not vested in the Harbour Board. Cliff erosion is often primarily the result of wind action or drainage water, rather than the action of the sea, which carries away material already eroded. The Harbour Board's interest in the matter therefore, at a practical level, rests with the matter of the accretion of the beaches and realignment of the coast line, which is something not seen as a matter disadvantageously affecting the Harbour Board's interest; and with the organisation and construction of any coastal protection schemes below high water mark that might be authorised. The Board will, however, be concerned not to permit any "beach mining" activities, or removal of sand or gravel, along the northern shores or anywhere else where erosion or depletion of the beaches might result. As the owner of stone, both above and below high water mark, the Forestry, Mines and Lands Board supports the Harbour Board in being concerned not to permit beach mining activities. 35. Interests of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Undoubtedly coastal erosion occurs in places that lead to and will continue to lead to the disappearance of agricultural land. However, the land affected is often of marginal quality, being, at the point of erosion, of a very sandy nature and unlikely to be land attracting much in the way of agricultural value. Naturally private landowners whose farms are subject to erosion might not see it in this light, but it is the view of the Reporting Boards that little significant loss to agricultural land, taken as a whole in terms of quality of that land, is threatened by coastal erosion. The Reporting Boards are, however, conscious of the serious effects erosion is believed by some farmers to have on the viability of their farms, particularly those who have land in the area of Kirk Michael and Shellag at Bride. In the sense that the Board is responsible to Tynwald for the welfare of agriculture, it may be incumbent upon the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to liaise with and advise farmers who suffer or are likely to suffer erosion, with a view to encouraging them to utilise farm practices which reduce erosion, and to install adequate drainage systems to the same end. The Board may also have an interest in encouraging farmers suffering loss of land to improve and bring under cultivation marginal land which is away from any erosion "hazard zone." There is probably much that farmers can do to help themselves, by keeping erosion-risk land under permanent pasture, by not ploughing near a cliff, and by installing good fences well inland from cliff edges. 36. Interests of the Highway and Transport Board The Surveyor General has expressed an opinion that three local areas of coast erosion in the north of the Island affect, or might affect, public highways - (a) Peel to Kirk Michael coast road between the Devil's elbow and Kirk Michael. (Gulley erosion at Glen Mooar has been eased by the provision of adequate drainage to deal with surface water from the Highway). (b) Shellag Point (Bride Road), (c) Point of Ayre Road (Phurt near Cranstal). It is the view that the Board would be unlikely to seek to protect a highway from collapse by construction of seawall defences. Although each case would have to be carefully examined as to cost involved, it would be likely that the cost of coastal protection, even locally, would be vastly greater than realigning the highway and acquiring the necessary land by purchase. (A replacement new highway costs about half a million pounds per mile). In the last resort, realignment not being practical, the Highway Board would consider abandoning an affected road as a main highway and cause traffic to be diverted along another existing route, rather than incur the likely enormous cost of constructing coastal defences. It seems to the Reporting Boards likely that in the not too far distant future the Highway and Transport Board will be faced with the possibility of having to re-align the Peel to Kirk Michael road as a consequence of coastal erosion, but which for cost effective reasons could not be protected by means of sea defences. So far as the Highway and Transport Board are concerned there is no practical means of arresting coastal erosion within the Manx Budget and sea defences should not be considered except at points on the coast where there is some major public asset to protect. The highways likely to be affected, although important, are not seen as coming within such a category, with the exception of one or two isolated points. The Board have a role to play in reducing the progress of erosion by the provision of adequate drainage associated with highways and public rights of way in "hazard zones." To the extent that walkers on cliff tops might destabilise the top of the cliff, the Board might also have a role in re-locating footpaths, over a long period, or in seeking to provide footpaths away from cliff tops where the lack of a public path results in walkers taking a route along the very edge of an eroding cliff. ### 37. Interests of the Local Government Board (a) Apart from liaising with Boards of Commissioners, the Local Government Board's interests are in connection with planning (e.g. the desirability of controlling development in "hazard zones", for practical reasons, and also of controlling development on the seaward side of coastal roads in order to protect the scenic quality of the coast), and with regard to the effect coastal erosion might have upon individual property. (b) The Local Government Board and the town and villages have a number of sea outfalls whose effect on coastal erosion should be monitored. (c) The Reporting Boards, having consulted the Local Government Board's planning officer, understand that his Department have made projections based on the Jolliffe Report, assessing the extent of the areas of coastal land that may be at risk from erosion over the next century. It would appear to be possible for the planning authorities to publish such projections delineating the areas at risk as "hazard zones", and to recommend to the public that no development take place in any such zone, especially when it is under threat within a period of 50 years. The planning authorities might reasonably take the risk of erosion into account when reaching decisions on planning applications. (d) It is understood by the Boards, that very few properties are likely to be affected by erosion within the foreseeable future, but that any such property at risk may incur reduction in market, rentable, or rateable value. This, however, is the inevitable result of the natural phenomenon of erosion and the Boards consider that it is incumbent upon property owners, or persons considering acquiring property, in areas at risk, to realistically assess the value of property in the light of such risk of erosion. Property owners might alleviate some of the difficulty themselves, by reducing the risk of erosion threat by taking all reasonable steps to ensure that water courses, drainage systems, and farming practices, do not contribute to the erosion of their own property or their neighbours' property. (e) In this regard, the planning authorities, in their consideration of applications for planning permission for development or "change of use" in a hazard zone, might recommend or impose planning conditions with respect to the provision of adequate drainage installations that minimise, or avoid, the possibility of coastal erosion being created or exacerbated by outfall of water courses, water pipes, sewerage, or surface water seepage associated with the development. ### 38. Interests of the Manx Museum and National Trust It is felt that the Manx museum and National Trust might find certain of its archaeological sites coming under threat from coastal erosion, and certain habitats for birds and other small creatures may be adversely affected over a very long period of time. It is not, however, thought that any sites of great importance to the Island or to wildlife are presently in fact threatened, but it is felt that the Manx Museum and National Trust might wish to give priority to any work they wish to undertake in erosion affected areas, and may consider liaising with other Boards and Commissioners. Although the National Trust own land on the northwestern Ayres coast, where accretion rather than erosion may be predominant at present, the Trust may particularly wish to assess whether any threat of erosion might seriously affect the areas of land in their ownership over the next decade or two, and what loss of public amenity might be anticipated, if any. ### 39. Interests of the Water and Gas Authority, the Electricity Board, and British Telecommunications As water and gas mains and electricity and telephone cables are often laid under or alongside highways, there can only be three sites which are likely to be affected by coastal erosion in the foreseeable future and their deviation from the present route would automatically occur were the Highway and Transport Board to re-align a highway. There may, however, be various properties where water pipes, sewerage pipes, electricity cables and telephone cables, will need to be re-located or removed. In no case are the Reporting Boards aware of any immediate concern and it is thought that the authorities responsible will in each case be well aware in advance of the need for any action at any particular site. It is not considered that any major expense is likely to be involved at any one time, except on any occasion when the Highway and Transport Board embark upon re-aligning a highway. ### 40. Interests of the Forestry, Mines and Lands Board So far as is known at the present time, land which is likely to be affected by erosion is vested in private property or Government undertakings other than the Forestry, Mines and Lands Board, except for areas at Rue Point, Blue Point, and Glen Wyllin which are utilised as recreational resorts. (Board land at Ballaghennie is presently in an area of predominant accretion rather than erosion). However, the Forestry Board might be in a position to assist in any coastal erosion defence system, on private land or otherwise, by giving advice on the strategic planting of trees or bushes at certain points on the coast, by arrangement with and at the request of the owner of the land. This would not only be a matter for coastal protection but also of amenity. Dr. Jolliffe indeed refers to this action as a possibility for the Point of Ayre area, and Executive Council are known to have concurred with this view. The question of financial responsibility for any advice or practical assistance given to landowners by the Forestry Board would, however, need to be examined were action on land in private ownership or ownership of other Government agencies to be proposed. It should, however, be borne in mind that the planting of trees or bushes is to be considered mainly an amenity benefit rather than primarily a means of protecting eroding coasts, except at those points where the cliff is of a reasonably gentle slope or has been graded accordingly. Such sites, however, probably mainly occur on private property.