FAQs

Sea levels, wave heights and the frequency of winter storms are all anticipated to increase as a result of climate change. More information on climate change can be found: here. 

The risk of flooding from the sea over the next 100 years with 1 metre of sea level rise was modelled to improve our understanding of how the risk of flooding in the area may change in the future. It is estimated that without increasing the height of the sea wall, 11 homes and 30 businesses would be at risk of internal flooding from the sea by the year 2121. Raising the height of the sea wall would still leave 5 homes and 18 businesses at risk of internal property flooding from the sea by the year 2121. 

The financial analysis has indicated that raising the height of the sea wall is not an economically viable option to take forward currently. As part of the refurbishment project, we will include works which strengthen the foundations of the seawall with the foresight that a decision to raise the height of the seawall may be a viable option in 50 years’ time.

The Environment Agency, together with Coastal Protection Authorities (CPAs) such as the Isle of Wight Council, however, this is not a legal obligation. This means that the Environment Agency and the Isle of Wight Council have the ‘power to’ carry out coastal protection works but is not duty bound to do so. Our ability to exercise these powers is also constrained by the need to take into account the costs and benefits (both tangible and intangible) of any investment, as set out in HM Treasury and Defra guidance. In general, CPAs and the Environment Agency will only act where there is a clear economic benefit and/or an appropriate engineering solution that is achievable, and where environmental legislation is not contravened. 

Ownership/maintenance of the sea wall and groynes in the Shanklin scheme area rests with the Isle of Wight Council. Once any scheme is completed, it is intended that the current ownership/maintenance arrangements will continue.

On behalf of the UK Government, the Environment Agency prioritise and allocate funding to flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) schemes using a partnership funding approach. Securing funding is dependent on the benefits and outcomes delivered by a scheme. Funding contributions from other sources such as local levy (raised by the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees), private and public organisations and/or the local community, may be required to enable the release of FCERM Grant in Aid funding (FCERM GiA). 

When calculating the benefits (also described as flood or erosion damages avoided) a FCERM scheme delivers, a baseline must first be established. This can be thought of as ‘what would be at risk if we did nothing?’. This process considers the maximum area likely to impacted, and in the case of flooding, to what depth and for what duration. The next stage is to explore land use i.e. what will be affected by flooding or erosion. This could include, but is not limited to residential properties, commercial properties including retail, warehouses, industry, road and rail networks and utilities such as gas, electricity, telecoms and water supplies. Additionally, recreation, education and health services damages are incorporated along with local authority and emergency recovery costs. Finally, agriculture and environmental damages are also captured. Damages can be defined as direct or indirect, where direct damages include physical impacts, and indirect damages can be realised beyond the area immediately affected e.g. failure of a sewerage treatment works could have far reaching effects. 

Once the total amount of damages has been calculated the actual cost of the proposed works and the period of time the scheme will be effective for are all considered. Finally, a tariff system is employed to determine exactly how much FCERM GiA a scheme can ultimately attract. Currently, the assets attracting the greatest proportion of FCERM GiA are residential properties, with additional sums also being made available for those properties located in the nations most deprived areas. More information relating to FCERM GiA partnership funding can be found here

We will be working closely with our partners, stakeholders and the wider community throughout the delivery of the scheme. Since September 2020 we have formed an Integrated Delivery Team made up of industry experts from the Environment Agency, Isle of Wight Council, JBA Consulting and VolkerStevin. The views of the local community will be key in ensuring the successful delivery of this coastal erosion scheme. 

If you would like to contact the delivery team with any specific question not covered here or would just like to be kept informed throughout the scheme’s development, then please email us - IOW_FDschemes@environment-agency.gov.uk

Flood and coastal erosion risk management infrastructure needs have been assessed for the Isle of Wight coastline through a number of plans, strategies and studies undertaken by the Isle of Wight Council in partnership with the Environment Agency. These help us to decide how and where coastal risks can be reduced, and where it is appropriate to allow the coastline to evolve naturally. 

The Isle of Wight Shoreline Management Plan (SMP, 2010) sets the policy for how the risks facing each section of coastline should be managed for the next 100 years. 

This is followed by a Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy or Study. The Isle of Wight is divided into three strategy/study areas, where appropriate schemes are identified to put the policies into place, and the high-level costs and benefits are assessed. This work has produced a list of priority schemes in locations where existing flood and coastal erosion walls and embankments are at the most immediate risk of failure, where such a failure would put people, property and the environment at risk, and where the availability of central government funding justifies development of a coastal risk management proposal. 

In areas where the SMP and a strategy/study has identified a need for infrastructure improvements but priority schemes are not currently being developed, this may be because sufficient government funding cannot currently be justified, or because there is not an immediate risk and work on these schemes can be commenced once the initial priority schemes are underway. 

Where the costs and benefits of a scheme do not currently enable us to justify a significant investment of government funding, both the Environment Agency and the Isle of Wight Council complete routine monitoring and inspections of the structures within our respective ownership. This will continue with the aim of managing any health and safety risks, completing repairs where necessary and affordable, and maximising the life span of these structures.

The SMP policy for Sandown and Shanklin is ‘Hold the Line’, this can be viewed here.

An initial appraisal and scheme identification study was completed in 20181 for Sandown Bay. This study assessed the costs and benefits of the management approaches available to implement the Hold the Line SMP policy for distinct study units along the frontage.

IW Study Units (Image extracted from Sandown Bay Initial Appraisal and Scheme Identification Study) 

The study Unit IW28 is 457m long and is located to the south of Shanklin Esplanade, extending from Shanklin Chine southwards to approximately the position of Luccombe Hall (located on the cliff top). This study unit is a transition between the hard sea defences (timber revetment and groynes) to the north and the undefended cliffs to the south. 

The Sandown Bay study concluded that the leading economic option for the coastal defences south of Shanklin Chine was the ‘Do Minimum’ option. The Do Minimum option involves small scale reactive maintenance and ‘patch and repair’ work to the existing timber revetment and groynes to extend their remaining life alongside the continued small scale cliff stabilisation measures. The Do minimum option has the highest benefit cost ratio of the short listed options.

Leading economic option for IW28 (Shanklin Chine to Luccombe Hall)

It is not economically justifiable to implement a ‘do something’ option such as maintaining, sustaining or improving the coastal defences. This is because the number of properties at risk is limited compared to the cost of the works required to better protect them from coastal erosion. In addition, most properties at risk along the cliff tops are anticipated to be affected in the longer term rather than the shorter term. The Sandown Bay study estimates that just 2 properties are at risk of coastal erosion by 2057 and 28 properties at risk by 2117. This means that central government funding (known as Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant in Aid funding) is not available for this section of coastal defences. For this reason, the timber defences just south of Shanklin Chine are not included in the Shanklin Coastal Defence Scheme currently being progressed by the Environment Agency and Isle of Wight Council. 

The current Shoreline Management Plan policy for the existing coastal defences south of Shanklin Chine is to Hold the Line, therefore refurbishment activities from private landowners / the local community would be permitted under this SMP policy, subject to acquiring the relevant consents. The Isle of Wight Council complete routine monitoring and inspections of the structures. This will continue with the aim of managing any health and safety risks, undertaking repairs where necessary and affordable, and maximising the life span of these structures. 

Our procurement mission statement can be found here

We are committed to supporting small island-based businesses. We also encourage our larger suppliers to consider small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in their sub-contracting opportunities. Under our Next Generation Supplier Arrangement, the Environment Agency have appointed Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd (JBA) and VolkerStevin Ltd (VS) to help deliver our flood and coastal defence programme in the South East. Currently, we are still developing a design and don’t yet know what any construction works will entail. Once options progress, we will provide more detail on how SMEs can get involved.

Throughout this project there will be numerous opportunities for you to feed into its development. We will continue to increase the level of communication with you and update you with progress. 

We would encourage all interested parties in the area and neighbouring communities to sign up to updates by registering your interest at IOW_FDschemes@environment-agency.gov.uk. We would also encourage you to support any family members, friends or neighbours who cannot access online information, by sharing our updates with them.

Construction work is estimated to commence in 2026/27, if scheme funding can be obtained. These are preliminary dates that will be subject to change as plans progress, and we will work with our partners and stakeholders to agree acceptable timings for construction activities.

The works would be expected to involve resurfacing the seawall and refurbishment of the wooden groynes and concrete groynes. However, the design is still being developed, so we do not yet know for certain what the works will look like, how long the work will take, or the type of machinery required. We will speak with residents, businesses and other key organisations, such as infrastructure providers, who might be affected by this scheme to understand concerns and collaborate so that we can minimise any potential disruption to them.

As the design is still being developed, we do not yet know for certain what the works will entail, and how the beach will be affected. We understand the importance of the beach, not only for tourism and recreation and because it is an integral part of the town’s character, but also the benefits it offers for flood defence. The groynes, which help retain beach material, are near to the end of their useful life and are in need refurbishing. This is, however, likely to be expensive and would need to be justified in terms of the benefit it would bring to reducing erosion and flood risk in order to qualify for some Government Grant in Aid funding. We will be looking at the how we balance these issues, working closely with stakeholders and the Isle of Wight Council to do this.

An overview of the options appraisal process at Outline Business Case stage is presented in the poster here

More detail about the process:

The Preferred Option has been selected using the decision-making process defined in the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Appraisal Guidance. For this type of project, Cost Benefit Analysis has been used to select the Preferred Option in accordance with the appraisal guidance. This guidance defines Cost Benefit Analysis as a type of appraisal or assessment which compares benefits and costs to identify the impact of different options on overall welfare.

The project objectives were split into criteria to allow the objectives to be assessed in more detail. Elected councillors were invited to participate in the process for assessing whether the options met broader Isle of Wight Council objectives. This exercise allowed the options to be ranked in order of acceptance.

The engineering implications of the options were assessed following a review of the Ground Investigation Report by the geotechnical and structural engineers. The carbon footprint for the short list of options was quantified and a high-level construction cost estimated. This is in addition to overtopping and inundation flood modelling, further environmental and Biodiversity Net Gain assessments, detailed economic appraisals and funding assessments which have also been carried out.

With the results of the appraisal and public consultation to hand, the project team were joined by Isle of Wight Council representatives at a workshop on 30 November 2023 to agree the preferred option. This recommendation was then reviewed by Isle of Wight Council’s Climate and Environment Board for consideration. The recommendation received approval with the stipulation that the design must not preclude a decision to raise the height of the seawall in the future.

The financial assessment compared the benefits and costs to identify the impact of each option overall. The benefits to the community of progressing Option 3 (the preferred option) outweigh the costs. The work will bring over £80 million worth of benefits to the community, the local infrastructure, and the local environment.

The figure below summarises the Short List appraisal for those options deemed to qualify for consideration as the Preferred Option (Options 3, 4 & 5).

The ranking of the options is based on:

• The criteria grouped by PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technical, Legal, Environmental).
• The criteria grouped by Objectives.
• Economic, Financial, and Carbon ranking

A PESTLE analysis studies the key external factors (Political, Economic, Social, Technical, Legal and Environmental) that influence an organisation or environment. It can be used in a range of different scenarios, and can guide people and professionals in strategic decision-making.

In terms of appraisal against the criteria, Option 3 at Shanklin was ranked first overall. Option 3 ranked second for PESTLE. Option 3 ranked second for scheme objectives but still meets all scheme objectives. Option 3 ranked highest of all options for economic, financial and carbon ranking. Option 3 has the longest duration of benefits (50 years) when compared to the other options (20-40 years). Other than the usual maintenance for Isle of Wight Council, no interim works are expected in the 50 years of the scheme.

The flood risk assessment shows that the risk of internal property flooding from waves overtopping the existing sea wall is low given the height of the existing wall and raised floor levels of properties. Only a small number of properties would remain at risk of internal flooding from waves overtopping the sea wall after the refurbishment work is complete. Our modelling estimates that no homes and only 5 businesses would remain at risk of internal property flooding from a tidal flooding event with a 0.5% annual probability (1 in 200 chance each year). 

The financial analysis suggests that other measures such as Property Flood Resilience (PFR) measures are a more cost-effective method of reducing the risk of internal flooding to these properties. This opportunity will be explored as part of the next phase of work on the scheme. PFR measures can include flood boards, air brick covers, non-return valves and pumps, as well as work to ensure that the fabric of the property is sound. More information about PFR can be found here: https://bluepages.org.uk/

We can never remove the risk of flooding entirely. Our flood risk assessment shows that if the height of the sea wall was to be increased, there would still be a risk of wave overtopping and associated internal property flooding. The same 5 businesses would remain at risk of internal flooding even if Option 4 and Option 5 were to be implemented. 

The results of the financial analysis have shown that the additional scheme benefits from raising the height of the sea wall do not outweigh the additional scheme costs. Increasing the height of the sea wall almost doubles the cost of the scheme. The shortfall in funding makes the option to raise the height of the sea wall an unviable option for Isle of Wight Council to take forward.

The risk of flooding from the sea over the next 100 years with 1 metre of sea level rise was modelled to improve our understanding of how the risk of flooding in the area may change in the future. It is estimated that without increasing the height of the sea wall, 11 homes and 30 businesses would be at risk of internal flooding from the sea by the year 2121. Raising the height of the sea wall would still leave 5 homes and 18 businesses at risk of internal property flooding from the sea by the year 2121. 

 As part of the refurbishment project, we will include works which strengthen the foundations of the seawall with the foresight that a decision to raise the height of the seawall may be a viable option in 50 years’ time.