Financial analysis

Option 3 provides over £160 million worth of benefits to people, property and the environment. The additional benefits associated with Option 4 and Option 5 are not as great. The figure below shows the cost to construct Option 3 is significantly less compared with Option 4 and Option 5. Increasing the height of the sea wall almost doubles the cost of the scheme. The public consultation told us that there is interest locally in raising the height of the existing defences however the funding shortfall of £6.4million and over £13million for Option 4 and Option 5 respectively makes these unviable options for Isle of Wight Council to take forward.

Information on Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management schemes are funded can be found here: https://thefloodhub.co.uk/frms-funding-and-delivery/

Addressing the shortfall in funding for the preferred option -

As a competent authority under Habitat Regulations the Environment Agency must have regard for the protection of the designated freshwater habitat of Brading Marshes, and can therefore apply for funding set aside to protect designated habitat. This funding will only cover the costs to close a funding gap for the lowest cost option for achieving habitat protection. This is Option 3 which is the most economically viable way of protecting Brading Marshes.

The Environment Agency submitted a business case to Southern Water seeking a contribution towards the scheme as the water treatment works in Sandown will benefit from better protection from flooding from the sea. This bid has been included in Southern Water’s submission to The Water Services Regulation Authority, or Ofwat. This bid will not be determined until December 2024.

A funding strategy will be produced during the Full Business Case stage in 2025. Project costs are expected to change following more detailed costings from our contractor.