Jersey Shoreline Management Plan: January 2020

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan

January 2020

R.5/2020

Quality information

Prepared by  Checked by  Verified by  Approved by Jason Drummond  Jon Short  Jon Short  Tara-Leigh McVey

Principal Flood and  Associate Director  Associate Director  Project Director Coastal Specialist

Revision History

Revision  Revision date  Details  Authorized  Name  Position

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Midpoint, Alencon Link

Basingstoke

Hampshire RG21 7PP

United Kingdom

T: +44(0)1256 310200 aecom.com

© 2020 AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited ("AECOM") for sole use of our client (the "Client") in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. SMP Aims and Principles.................................................................................................................. 2
2. SMP Process Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3
3. Policies ............................................................................................................................................. 4
4. Structure of the SMP ........................................................................................................................ 4

1. SMP Report Structure....................................................................................................................... 5
2. The Supporting Appendices.............................................................................................................. 6
3. GIS and Database ............................................................................................................................ 6

5. The Plan Development Process ....................................................................................................... 6
6. Review Cycle .................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Basis for Development of the Plan ............................................................................................................... 8

1. Historical and Current Perspective ................................................................................................... 8

1. Physical Structure of the Coast ........................................................................................................ 8
2. Environment ..................................................................................................................................... 8
3. Community ..................................................................................................................................... 11
4. Economy......................................................................................................................................... 11

2. Sustainable Policy .......................................................................................................................... 11
3. Current Management Plans ............................................................................................................ 12

1. Revised 2011 Island Plan (2014) .................................................................................................... 12
2. Future Jersey.................................................................................................................................. 13
3. Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy ............................................................................. 14
   4. Previous Coastal Studies................................................................................................................ 14

1. Jersey Coastal Management Study (1991)..................................................................................... 14
2. Coastal Defence Asset Management (2002) .................................................................................. 14
3. Climate Change, Jersey: Effects on Coastal Defences (2007) ....................................................... 14
4. Sea Defence Strategy (2015) ......................................................................................................... 14
   5. Development of Policy .................................................................................................................... 14

1. Defining the Coastal Management Areas ....................................................................................... 14
2. Defining the Coastal Management Units ........................................................................................ 16

3. Policy Option Appraisal Approach .............................................................................................................. 18

1. Comparison of Management Policies for Jersey ............................................................................ 18

1. Description of the physical structure and key features of the Island of Jersey................................ 18
2. Description of the No Active Intervention' policy ............................................................................ 18
3. Description of the Maintain the Defence Line' policy...................................................................... 18
4. Description of the Adaptive Management' policy ........................................................................... 18
5. Description of the Advance the Line' policy.................................................................................... 19

2. Policy Option Assessment Scoring and Criteria.............................................................................. 19
3. Economic Assessment.................................................................................................................... 21

4. Coastal Management Area 1 – South Coast (CMA1)................................................................................. 22

1. Coastal Management Unit 1.1 (Noirmont Common) ....................................................................... 26
2. Coastal Management Unit 1.2 (Belcroute Bay)............................................................................... 28
3. Coastal Management Unit 1.3 (La Housse) .................................................................................... 30
4. Coastal Management Unit 1.4 (St Aubin's Harbour) ....................................................................... 32
5. Coastal Management Unit 1.5 (St Aubin's Bay) .............................................................................. 36
6. Coastal Management Unit 1.6 (St Helier) ....................................................................................... 40
7. Coastal Management Unit 1.7 (La Collette) .................................................................................... 43
8. Coastal Management Unit 1.8 (Havre des Pas) ............................................................................. 45
9. Coastal Management Unit 1.9 (La Greve d'Azette) ........................................................................ 49
10. Coastal Management Unit 1.10 (Le Hocq / Pontac) ....................................................................... 53

5. Coastal Management Area 2 – Grouville Bay (CMA2) ............................................................................... 56

1. Coastal Management Unit 2.1 (Royal Bay of Grouville ).................................................................. 59
2. Coastal Management Unit 2.2 (Gorey Harbour) ............................................................................. 63

6. Coastal Management Area 3 – St Catherine's (CMA3) .............................................................................. 66

1. Coastal Management Unit 3.1 (La Route de la Cote) ..................................................................... 69
2. Coastal Management Unit 3.2 (Archirondel Tower) ........................................................................ 72
3. Coastal Management Unit 3.3 (St Catherine's Bay) ....................................................................... 76
4. Coastal Management Unit 3.4 (La Coupe) ..................................................................................... 78

7. Coastal Management Area 4 – North Coast (CMA4) ................................................................................. 80

1. Coastal Management Unit 4.1 (La Coupe to Rozel Bay) ................................................................ 84
2. Coastal Management Unit 4.2 (Rozel Bay)..................................................................................... 86
3. Coastal Management Unit 4.3 (Le Catel)........................................................................................ 88
4. Coastal Management Unit 4.4 (Bouley Bay) ................................................................................... 90
5. Coastal Management Unit 4.5 (Egypt) ............................................................................................ 92
6. Coastal Management Unit 4.6 (Bonne Nuit) ................................................................................... 94
7. Coastal Management Unit 4.7 (La Perruque) ................................................................................. 96
8. Coastal Management Unit 4.8 (Ronez Quarry)............................................................................... 98
9. Coastal Management Unit 4.9 (Crabbé) ....................................................................................... 100
10. Coastal Management Unit 4.10 (Greve de Lecq) ......................................................................... 102
11. Coastal Management Unit 4.11 (Plemont) .................................................................................... 104

8. Coastal Management Area 5 – St Ouen's Bay (CMA5) ........................................................................... 106

1. Coastal Management Unit 5.1 (St Ouen's Bay) ............................................................................ 110
2. Coastal Management Unit 5.2 (Petit Port) .................................................................................... 114

9. Coastal Management Area 6 – St Brelade (CMA6).................................................................................. 116

1. Coastal Management Unit 6.1 (Gorselands)................................................................................. 119
2. Coastal Management Unit 6.2 (Les Creux)................................................................................... 121
3. Coastal Management Unit 6.3 (St Brelade's Bay) ........................................................................ 124
4. Coastal Management Unit 6.4 (Ouaisne Bay) .............................................................................. 127
5. Coastal Management Unit 6.5 (La Cotte de St Brelade) ............................................................... 130
6. Coastal Management Unit 6.6 (Portelet Common) ....................................................................... 132
7. Coastal Management Unit 6.7 (Portelet Beach) ........................................................................... 134

10. Policy Summary of the Preferred Plan and Implications .......................................................................... 137

1. Policy Summary Map .................................................................................................................... 138
2. Policy Summary Tables ................................................................................................................ 140
3. Public Consultation Key Messages .............................................................................................. 154
4. Policy Summary Implications ........................................................................................................ 155

11. Next Steps / Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 159

Figures

Figure 1-1: The Five Common Strategic Priorities (2018-22) outlined in the Common Strategic Policy.................. 1 Figure 1-2: Outcomes for Future Jersey, the Island's First Long Term Community Vision ...................................... 2 Figure 2-1: Environmental Designations in Jersey .................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2-2: Coastal Management Areas and Coastal Management Units............................................................. 17 Figure 4-1: Coastal Flooding and Erosion Risk for Coastal Management Area 1 – South Coast .......................... 24 Figure 4-2: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 1 - South Coast ........................................................ 25 Figure 4-3: Aerial view of the picturesque coastal landscape at Noirmont Common (CMU 1.1) ........................... 26 Figure 4-4: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.1 (Noirmont Common) ................................................... 27 Figure 4-5: Vertical masonry wall at Belcroute Bay (CMU 1.2) ............................................................................. 28 Figure 4-6: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.2 (Belcroute Bay)........................................................... 29 Figure 4-7: View of the coastline at CMU 1.3 (La Housse) ................................................................................... 30 Figure 4-8: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.3 (La Housse) ................................................................ 31 Figure 4-9: Coastal Flood risk at CMU1.4 (St Aubin's Harbour) ............................................................................ 33 Figure 4-10: Existing coastal defences at St Aubin's Harbour (CMU 1.4) ............................................................. 34 Figure 4-11: St Aubin's Harbour (CMU 1.4) ........................................................................................................... 34 Figure 4-12: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.5 (St Aubin's Bay) ........................................................ 37 Figure 4-13: Recurve wall design at Gunsite, St Aubin's Bay (CMU 1.5) .............................................................. 38 Figure 4-14: Sloping masonry wall at St Aubin's Bay (CMU 1.5)........................................................................... 38 Figure 4-15: Port of St Helier (CMU 1.6) ............................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4-16: Aerial view of the coastline at St Helier (CMU 1.6) ........................................................................... 41 Figure 4-17: Coastal Flood risk at CMU1.6 (St Helier) .......................................................................................... 42 Figure 4-18: Coastal Flood risk at CMU1.7 (La Collette)....................................................................................... 44 Figure 4-19: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.8 (Havre des Pas) ....................................................... 46 Figure 4-20: Existing coastal defences at Havre des Pas (CMU 1.8).................................................................... 47 Figure 4-21: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.9 (La Greve d'Azette) .................................................. 50 Figure 4-22: Coastline at La Greve d'Azette (CMU 1.9) ........................................................................................ 51 Figure 4-23 :Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.10 (Le Hocq / Pontac) ................................................. 54 Figure 4-24: Existing defences at Le Hocq / Pontac (CMU 1.10) .......................................................................... 55 Figure 5-1: Grouville Bay Coastline....................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 5-2: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at Coastal Management Area 2 – Grouville Bay ........................... 57 Figure 5-3: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 2 - Grouville Bay ....................................................... 58 Figure 5-4: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 2.1 (Royal Bay of Grouville )............................................. 60 Figure 5-5: Views of the coastline at the Royal Bay of Grouville (CMU 2.1) ......................................................... 61 Figure 5-6: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 2.2 (Gorey Harbour) ........................................................ 64 Figure 5-7: Gorey Harbour (CMU 2.2)................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 6-1: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at Coastal Management Area 3 - St Catherine's........................... 67 Figure 6-2: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 3 - St Catherine's ..................................................... 68

Figure 6-3: Existing coastal defences at the coastline in front of La Route de la Cote (CMU 3.1) ........................ 70 Figure 6-4: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 3.1 (La Route de la Cote) ................................................ 71 Figure 6-5: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 3.2 (Archirondel Tower) ............................................................................ 73 Figure 6-6: Coastline at Archirondel Tower (CMU 3.2) .......................................................................................... 74 Figure 6-7: Coastal defences at St Catherine's Bay (CMU 3.3) ............................................................................ 76 Figure 6-8: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 3.3 (St Catherine's Bay) .................................................. 77 Figure 6-9: Coastal defences at La Coupe (CMU 3.4) .......................................................................................... 78 Figure 6-10: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 3.4 (La Coupe) .............................................................. 79 Figure 7-1: Aerial view across the North Coast (CMA 4) ....................................................................................... 81 Figure 7-2: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at Coastal Management Area 4 - North Coast .............................. 82 Figure 7-3: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 4 - North Coast ......................................................... 83 Figure 7-4: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.1 (La Coupe to Rozel Bay) .................................................................... 84 Figure 7-5: Rozel Bay (CMU 4.2) .......................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 7-6: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.2 (Rozel Bay) ........................................................................................ 87 Figure 7-7: View of the coastline at Le Catel (CMU 4.3) ....................................................................................... 88 Figure 7-8: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.3 (Le Catel) ........................................................................................... 89 Figure 7-9: Coastal defences at Bouley Bay (CMU 4.4)........................................................................................ 90 Figure 7-10: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.4 (Bouley Bay)..................................................................................... 91 Figure 7-11: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 4.5 (Egypt) ..................................................................... 93 Figure 7-12: Coastal defences at Bonne Nuit (CMU 4.6) ...................................................................................... 94 Figure 7-13: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.6 (Bonne Nuit) ..................................................................................... 95 Figure 7-14: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.7 (La Perruque) ................................................................................... 96 Figure 7-15: Ronez Quarry (CMU 4.8) .................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 7-16: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.8 (Ronez Quarry) ................................................................................ 99 Figure 7-17: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.9 (Crabbé) ......................................................................................... 100 Figure 7-18: Coastline at Greve de Lecq (CMU 4.10) ......................................................................................... 102 Figure 7-19: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.10 (Greve de Lecq) ........................................................................... 103 Figure 7-20: View of the coastline at Plemont (CMU 4.11) .................................................................................. 104 Figure 7-21: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 4.11 (Plemont) ...................................................................................... 105 Figure 8-1: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at Coastal Management Area 5 - St Ouen's Bay ........................ 108 Figure 8-2: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 5 - St Ouen's Bay ................................................... 109 Figure 8-3: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 5.1 (St Ouen's Bay) ................................................................................. 111 Figure 8-4: Coastal defences along St Ouen's Bay (CMU 5.1) ........................................................................... 112 Figure 8-5: View of the coastline at St Ouen's Bay (CMU 5.1) ............................................................................ 112 Figure 8-6: Coastal defences at Petit Port (CMU 5.2) ......................................................................................... 114 Figure 8-7: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 5.2 (Petit Port) ............................................................... 115 Figure 9-1: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at Coastal Management Area 6 - St Brelade .............................. 117 Figure 9-2: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 6 - St Brelade ......................................................... 118 Figure 9-3: Beauport Beach, part of the coastline at Gorselands (CMU 6.1) ...................................................... 119 Figure 9-4: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 6.1 (Gorselands)............................................................ 120 Figure 9-5: Rocky coastline at Les Creux (CMU 6.2) .......................................................................................... 121 Figure 9-6: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 6.2 (Les Creux).............................................................. 123 Figure 9-7: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 6.3 (St Brelade's Bay).................................................... 125 Figure 9-8: Coastal defences located at St Brelade's Bay .................................................................................. 126

Figure 9-9: RC anti-tank wall at Ouaisne Bay (CMU 6.4) .................................................................................... 127 Figure 9-10: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 6.4 (Ouaisne Bay) ....................................................... 129 Figure 9-11: La Cotte de St Brelade (CMU 6.5) .................................................................................................. 130 Figure 9-12: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 6.5 (La Cotte de St Brelade) ........................................ 131 Figure 9-13: View of the coastline from Portelet Common (CMU 6.6)................................................................. 132 Figure 9-14: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 6.6 (Portelet Common) ................................................ 133 Figure 9-15: Portelet Beach (CMU 6.7) ............................................................................................................... 134 Figure 9-16: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 6.7 (Portelet Beach) .................................................... 136 Figure 10-1: Jersey Island-Wide Policy Summary Map....................................................................................... 139 Figure 10-2: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 1 - South Coast .................................................... 142 Figure 10-3: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 2 - Grouville Bay ................................................... 144 Figure 10-4: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 3 - St Catherine's.................................................. 146

Figure 10-5: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 4 - North Coast ..................................................... 149 Figure 10-6: Policy Summary for Coastal Management Area 5 - St Ouen's Bay................................................. 151 Figure 10-7: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 6 - St Brelade ....................................................... 153

Tables

Table 2-1: Island Plan policies relevant to the SMP development ......................................................................... 13 Table 2-2: Future Jersey Objectives relevant to the SMP policy development ...................................................... 13 Table 2-3: Overview of the Coastal Management Areas ....................................................................................... 15 Table 4-1: Coastal Management Area 1 - South Coast ......................................................................................... 22 Table 4-2: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.4 (St Aubin's Harbour) ....................................................... 32 Table 4-3: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.5 (St Aubin's Bay) ............................................................. 36 Table 4-4: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.6 (St Helier) ....................................................................... 41 Table 4-5: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.8 (Havre des Pas) ............................................................. 45 Table 4-6: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.9 (La Greve d'Azette) ........................................................ 49 Table 4-7: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.10 (Le Hocq / Pontac) ....................................................... 53 Table 5-1: Coastal Management Area 2 - Grouville Bay........................................................................................ 56

Table 5-2: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 2.1 (Royal Bay of Grouville ) ................................................. 59 Table 5-3: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 2.2 (Gorey Harbour) ............................................................. 63 Table 6-1: Coastal Management Area 3 - St Catherine's ...................................................................................... 66 Table 6-2: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 3.2 (Archirondel Tower) ........................................................ 72 Table 7-1: Coastal Management Area 4 - North Coast .......................................................................................... 80 Table 8-1: Coastal Management Area 5 - St Ouen's Bay .................................................................................... 106 Table 9-1: Coastal Management Area 6 - St Brelade .......................................................................................... 116 Table 9-2: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 6.3 (St Brelade's Bay) ........................................................ 124 Table 10-1: Summary of Preferred Options for Coastal Management Area 1 – South Coast .............................. 140 Table 10-2: Summary of Preferred Options for Coastal Management Area 2 – Grouville Bay ............................ 143 Table 10-3: Summary of Preferred Options for Coastal Management Area 3 – St Catherine's ........................... 145 Table 10-4: Summary of Preferred Options for Coastal Management Area 4 – North Coast .............................. 147 Table 10-5: Summary of Preferred Options for Coastal Management Area 5 – St Ouen's Bay ........................... 150 Table 10-6: Summary of Preferred Options for Coastal Management Area 6 – St Brelade ................................. 152 Table 10-7. Policy implementation implications by theme. .................................................................................. 155 Table 11-1: Recommendations for actions .......................................................................................................... 159

Supporting Appendices

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

1.  Introduction

The  Jersey  Shoreline  Management  Plan  (SMP)  is  a  high-level  document  which  provides  an   Island-wide assessment of the risks associated with flooding and erosion from coastal sources. This document sets out a policy framework to manage these risks to the community, environment and economy of Jersey in a sustainable manner over the next 100 years (up to 2120).

The plan provides a broad assessment of the risks to Jersey as an Island, and specific advice for the management of coastal defences to provide a resilient coastline. It identifies methods to deliver policies which will support long- term adaptive coastal defence in Jersey. Through this, the SMP will support the long-term strategic framework for Jersey including the Common Strategic Policy (2018-22), the Government Plan (2020-23) and Future Jersey, the Island's 20 year community vision. The SMP will also feed into the Island Plan review process, forming part of the baseline evidence for coastal processes and future coastal change. This will support the next iteration to be adopted and published in 2021 as the Island Plan (2021-30).

The Common Strategic Policy identifies five strategic priorities which focus key areas of policy for development on the Island (Figure 1-1). These strategic priorities support the outcomes of Future Jersey, the Island's first long term community vision, which serves as a guide for government, businesses, community organisations and individual Islanders to create an ideal future for Jersey. The vision for Future Jersey is divided into ten outcomes, across the three themes of community, environment and economy (Figure 1-2).

Figure 1-1: The Five Common Strategic Priorities (2018-22) outlined in the Common Strategic Policy[1]

Figure 1-2: Outcomes for Future Jersey, the Island's First Long Term Community Vision[2]

The development of the SMP has been carried out broadly in line with Flood and Coastal Erosion Management (FCERM) in England, developed by the Environment Agency. As an independent island state, the plan does not need to strictly follow the guidance set by England, and this SMP is distinct to Jersey and the requirements of the unique coastline.

This SMP document has been developed by the Government of Jersey, with special thanks to the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) for providing expert input on future sea conditions, climate predictions and resilience, and shoreline management.

1. SMP Aims and Principles

The aim of the SMP is to provide a proactive and climate resilient management plan for coastal activity in Jersey. This will reduce risks to the community, environment and economy over 100 years, across three management epochs which broadly correspond to the following time periods:

• Present day (2020-2040);

• Medium Term (2040-2070); and

• Long Term (2070-2120).

The plan provides a long-term vision which is able to demonstrate that defence decisions made in the present day will not be detrimental today and in the future. Implementing a management plan which considers policies over three management epochs facilitates the transition of policy and preparation and planning for any changes in policy. This enables provision of resilient management actions to deliver present day policies which protect existing communities against coastal flooding, and future policies which support sustainability and climate resilience, considering the predicted impact of rising still water levels on socio-economic development. The plan is sufficiently flexible to adapt to future changes on the Island in terms of legislation, politics, community needs and scientific understanding.

To achieve the overarching aim 10 objectives were set by the Government of Jersey:

1. To define the Island-wide risks from flooding and coastal erosion to the community, environment and economy;
2. To clearly prioritise flood and coastal erosion risks in line with the delivery of Future Jersey;

3. To identify opportunities to maintain and improve Jersey's community, environment and economy through the management of these risks;
4. To identify the preferred policies in terms of socio-economic and environmental impact for managing risk over the next century, taking into consideration the consequences of putting policy options into practise;
5. To assess the level of resourcing required to implement the preferred policy option;
6. To implement a procedure that monitors the effectiveness of the chosen policies and any change within the natural and built environment influenced by, or of influence to, the policy (or schemes delivering the policy);
7. To inform land use planning policy, which takes account of the risks and chosen policies, discouraging inappropriate new development in areas of high hazard exposure now and in the future;
8. To promote adaptive development in existing built-up areas.
9. To ensure policy and management activities comply with Island legislation and conservation requirements;
10. To expose knowledge gaps in current understanding of flood and coastal erosion hazards and produce an action plan to address these gaps.

Following adoption of the SMP, the Government of Jersey will implement the Action Plans, based on recommendations in Section 11, including developing outline designs for the development of schemes to support the preferred policies.

The plan is also intended to inform wider strategic planning; although it does not set policy for anything other than coastal defence management, it will act as baseline evidence for other Island strategies and plans that are developed in the future. It will support the work of Island-wide management frameworks such as Future Jersey, whilst providing localised knowledge of the key issues in each area of the Island. The plan will inform and feed into the development of land use planning set out in the Island Plan (which will be reviewed in 2020/21) and the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan. It will also provide evidence for other coastal policy documents, such as the Jersey Ports Masterplan (anticipated 2020) and Emergency Plans (currently under review) to deal with responses to flood events.

The plan will supersede the existing Sea Defence Strategy[3]; therefore, it is imperative to incorporate review cycles to feed into the appropriate budgeting cycles for coastal defence. Due to its positioning in Jersey's planning and strategy setting hierarchy, the review cycle of the SMP will need to align with future updates of the Island Plan beyond 2020/21 i.e. around 2028/29 to suit the Island Plan review cycle, while the delivery of the SMP through the Sea Defence Strategy will need to be planned and reviewed annually through the capital programme budgeting process.

2. SMP Process Objectives

The objectives of the SMP process (as distinct from the Government of Jersey's specific objectives for management of the coast) are as follows:

• To provide an understanding of the coastline, its processes and values;

• To define, the risks to the community, environment and economy of Jersey over the next 100 years;

• To identify the likely consequence of different management policies;

• To identify the preferred policies for managing risks or creating opportunity for sustainable management;

• To examine the consequences of implementing the preferred policies in terms of the objectives for management;

• To set out procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the SMP policies;

• To inform key stakeholders so that future development of the shoreline can take due account of the risks and preferred SMP policies; and,

• To acknowledge and, where relevant, comply with international and national nature conservation legislation and biodiversity obligations.

3. Policies

Four management policies have been considered for implementation within the SMP, following the policy option appraisal approach (Section 3). The impact of each policy option on the risk of flooding and coastal erosion, the community, the environment and the economy has been considered in the appraisal process.

The following four policy options have been considered:

• No Active Intervention – a policy decision to not invest in coastal defences or maintenance work. The shoreline is left to naturally evolve without intervention. This policy will generally be applied to natural areas of the coastline which are currently undefended;

• Maintain the Defence Line – existing coastal defences are maintained. The level of flood protection may decrease in some locations over time due to climate change. This policy will generally be applied where the existing defences provide a reasonable standard of flood protection or prevent erosion of the shoreline;

• Adaptive Management – a policy to proactively manage and mitigate coastal flood or erosion risk. The policy will be delivered through various management schemes / initiatives depending on the level of risk and the circumstances. This could include improving the standard of flood protection for an existing sea defence, constructing new defences, raising awareness of local flood risk or recommending property level flood protection; and,

• Advance the Line – new sea defences are built seaward of existing defences. This policy will only be implemented in areas where there is a significant risk of coastal flooding or erosion, or where it will deliver additional benefits for the community, environment and economy, such as creating a new amenity space.

Although the potential impact of each policy option has been considered at each location around the Island, No Active Intervention has generally been selected where there are no existing coastal defences. It is the intention of the Government of Jersey to maintain all existing coastal defences as a minimum.

Through the implementation of these policies, the SMP will aim to build and maintain sea defences which provide a standard of protection to prevent coastal flooding from a 1:200 year return period event. This will permit the Government of Jersey to design all defences to this standard. During subsequent implementation of policies with defence schemes, however, further appraisal of the technical options available, the costs of implementation, and feedback from stakeholder engagement may result in the construction of defences to a lower standard of protection. This is an acceptable approach, in line with the objectives of the SMP, and will allow the Government to respond to the prevailing shoreline conditions and climate science nearer to the time. It also means that defences will be designed to allow for future adaptation to increase the standard of protection, as necessary. This proportionate approach aligns with the principles of sustainable development, and will result in a scheduled, periodic review of the risks associated with flooding and coastal erosion to the Island, at a frequency expected to be every 10 years.

4. Structure of theSMP

The management intent and policies presented in this SMP are the result of collating and interpreting information from all available studies associated with the Jersey coastline. To draw all of this information together and provide clarity for different audiences, the documentation of the SMP is provided in a number of parts. It is composed of the SMP itself, a series of supporting appendices, and all key contributing data is collated in a geographical information system (GIS) and database, allowing information to be taken forward in implementing the plan for future users.

1. SMP Report Structure

This document provides the plan for the future management of the Jersey coastline, and the policies required to support the implementation of the management intent. This is intended for the general readership, and is the main tool for communicating the future management of the Island's coastline. The report includes justifications for the decision-making process, though it does not provide all of the information behind the recommendations, which is contained in other documents. The plan is presented in ten parts:

Section 1 Introduction  Provides  details  on  the  aims,  objectives,  principles,  structure, background and development of the Shoreline Management Plan.

Section 2 Basis for Development  Provides  a broad  overview  of  Jersey,  describing  the  concepts of

of the Plan  seeking sustainable policies and an understanding of the development of policies for the different areas of the Island.

Section 3 Policy Option Appraisal  Provides an understanding of the policy option appraisal process, Approach  demonstrating robust policy development to confirm the selection of

the  preferred  policies  for  each  area  of  the  Island  to  provide management of coastal flood and erosion risk along the coastline for the next 100 years. This section also includes definitions of the four management  policies  which  have  been  considered,  and  an

explanation of the economic assessment.

Sections 4-9 Policy development  The Jersey coastline has been divided into six Coastal Management

and the preferred plan  Areas (CMAs), and the policy development is discussed for each CMA for each Coastal  in its own section:

Management Area

• South Coast (CMA1; Section 4)

• Grouville Bay (CMA2; Section 5)

• St Catherine's (CMA3; Section 6)

• North Coast (CMA4; Section 7)

• St Ouen's Bay (CMA5; Section 8)

• St Brelade (CMA6; Section 9)

Each CMA section starts with a discussion of the key features along the coastline. The CMAs have then been split into 36 smaller, manageable Coastal Management Units (CMUs). The process of developing the policy for each CMU is explained, giving an understanding of why decisions have been made based on the associated activities of each unit, and the future predicted behaviour of the coast is explained in terms of flood risk and coastal erosion.

The implications of the preferred policies on each CMU are discussed, together  with  an  assessment  of  the  impact  on  the  community, environment  and  economic  objectives  which  comprise  the  option appraisal process, and results from the economic assessment.

Section 10  Policy Summary of the  Provides a brief summary of the policies specified for each of the Preferred Plan and  CMAs, and brings together the overall plan, highlighting the most

Implications  important issues for future management of the Jersey coastline. Section 11  Next Steps /  The emerging priority recommendations arising from the SMP, which

Recommendations should be actioned following confirmation and publication of the plan.

These recommendations will inform the development of the Action

Plans.

2. The Supporting Appendices

The supporting appendices provide all of the information required to develop and support the SMP policies, ensuring there is clarity in the decision-making process and that the rationale behind the policies being promoted is  transparent  and  understandable.  This  information  is  largely  of  technical  nature  and  is  provided  in  four appendices:

A  Stakeholder  and  Engagement

Communications Plan

B  Hydraulic Modelling Report

C  Policy Development and Multi-

variate Assessment

D  Economics Report

Details  of  the  stakeholder  engagement  process,  together  with information arising from the consultation and communications process.

Includes reports on coastal processes, hydrology, and mapping of future coastal flooding and erosion risks.

Provides  detail  on  the  development  of  the  policy  options  and objectives, with the tables used to assess which policies achieve the objectives set for each length of the coast.

Presents the economic analysis undertaken in support of the preferred plan.

3. GIS and Database

The SMP provides a future management framework, as it is acknowledged that the current understanding of the coast can be improved, addressing the areas of uncertainty that are currently present within the information. Not only will knowledge of the coastline evolve, but the use of the coastline will change over time.

All supplementary information used in the SMP is recorded in a GIS and database provided to the Government of Jersey. This information is recorded with the SMP, so that the management plan can be updated as new information is developed. This will allow for new information to be compared with the existing knowledge base to inform future coastal management decisions.

5. The Plan Development Process

The approach to shoreline management in this plan has been developed to align with the requirements of Jersey, based on a review of other approaches adopted in the UK and by other independent Island states. The plan therefore reflects the specific governance structure of the Government of Jersey, the unique nature of the Island and the specific coastal hazards for Jersey. The development of the plan has involved collation of all existing information regarding coastal erosion and flood risk to Jersey and definition of CMAs and CMUs to outline policies and management intent.

The production of the SMP has been undertaken by AECOM under the direction of the Government of Jersey and has been independently reviewed by NOC. The Government of Jersey's Shoreline Climate Resilience Group (SCRG) and other stakeholders have been consulted during the preparation of the plan; refer to Appendix A for details in the Stakeholder and Engagement Communications Plan.

The SMP development process has sought involvement from a number of organisations and individuals, including elected representatives, with a three-month period of consultation on the full Draft Plan from July to September 2019. The main activities completed in producing this SMP have been:

• Analysis of coastal processes, existing coastal defences and future coastal change for baseline evidence to support and provide recommendations for the existing management plan;

• Development of policies which consider different approaches to shoreline management across three management epochs;

• Development and analysis of issues and objectives for specific coastal areas, assets and themes, to determine the definitions of the CMAs and CMUs;

• Agreement of objectives with the Government of Jersey and stakeholders, and from this determining possible policies for each CMU;

• Examination of the economic assessment of each policy option and assessment of the implications for the community, environment and economic objectives for Jersey; and,

• Determination of the preferred plan and policies through review with the Government of Jersey, prior to compiling the SMP draft document.

This has been followed by:

• Consultation on the proposed plan and policies;

• Consideration of responses and finalising the SMP; and,

• The finalisation of next steps / recommendations.

6. Review Cycle

The SMP requires a formal review cycle to ensure information is updated, and that the preferred plan and policies remain appropriate in the future. The cycle allows for the policies to be updated in the management epochs, and support the Common Strategic Priorities, Future Jersey and changes to wider strategic planning on the Island to ensure a holistic approach to management of coastal defence, infrastructure, spatial planning policy and socio- economic development.

The intention is that the SMP will be reviewed every 10 years, following the release of the first plan in 2019. This frequency may be adjusted in light of a specific extreme event or the availability of significant new information such as new climate projections. The reviews may include changes to policy to the relevant management epoch, where the understanding of the coastline has changed. For management epoch 3 the review will fall at the same time as it starts. It is therefore suggested that the 50-year review of the SMP also considers resetting of the management epoch relative to the present-day period. This will continue sustainable and collaborative management of Jersey's shoreline.

2. Basis for Development of the Plan

1. Historical and Current Perspective

1. Physical Structure of the Coast

The Jersey coastline has changed over time to become what we see today, influenced by geology, coastal processes and human interaction. The Island encompasses a diverse range of natural features, the interactions between which have combined to create the unique character of the coastline. These physical features of the coastline can influence the way we choose to develop the urban environment inland and can determine the types of coastal defences which are appropriate for defending against coastal erosion and flooding.

The coast is dynamic, and change is predicted to influence the boundary between land and sea over the next 100 years. Climate change is predicted to cause rising still water levels, which will cause increased wave heights and increased severity and occurrence of storms. This will increase the risk of coastal flooding on the Island in the future, which is summarised in Appendix B, and forms the majority of the basis for developing this SMP.

The SMP will ensure that the impact of the interactions between the physical structure of the coast and the processes taking place are considered. This includes the influence of coastal defences on coastal processes such as those which determine erosion rates and beach levels. Within the management plan, potential sediment pathways are considered within the risk of coastal erosion, and the SMP provides guidance for managing these interactions at a local scale and Island-wide level.

2. Environment

The natural and historical environment of Jersey is recognised through several national and international conservation designations, presented in Figure 2-1. Along the coastline there are 17 ecological and 22 geological Sites of Special Interest (SSIs), and the southeast coast is recognised internationally as a Ramsar site. Several parts of the coastline are also recognised as part of the Coastal National Park, which encompasses ecologically sensitive and valuable areas of the coastline.

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 2-1: Environmental Designations in Jersey

January 2020  AECOM 9

Geology

The Jersey coastline is diverse in geology, and creates a landscape which is highly valuable, and draws in visitors. The Government of Jersey Countryside Character Appraisal (which is due to be updated by the end of 2019 as part of the Island Plan review process and will extend to seascape) defines the underlying solid and drift geology across the Island, and is discussed with respect to coastal erosion in Appendix B Cliffs are most prominent along the north and southwest coastlines of the Island, with elevated cliffs on the north coast made from hard volcanic rocks and granite. Those in the southwest are characterised by metamorphic granite and deports of porphyritic granite. Other headlands on the coast are less extensive and southeast and west areas of the coastline are composed of softer geology.

The 22 Geological SSIs located around the coastline are highlighted in the Biodiversity Strategy for Jersey, as having special geological interest and local protection, and are therefore considered in the SMP.

Ecology

The geographical position of Jersey, combined with a favourable climate, has resulted in a natural environment which is ecologically diverse and home to a mix of flora and fauna which is only found in the Channel Islands. Through the commitment to the Convention of Biological Diversity, Jersey's agreed responsibilities to protect biodiversity are highlighted in the Biodiversity Strategy for Jersey, which lists all the rich, diverse habitats found on the Island. The priorities of the Biodiversity Strategy are supported through the Island Plan, which includes policies to conserve and enhance biological diversity (see Section 2.3.1).

In order to protect the biodiversity of Jersey, 17 sites have been listed as Ecological SSIs – considered to be the best examples of ecology on the Island. They comprise 560 hectares of land, 5% of Jersey's land area, and are predominantly located along the coastline. For example, Atlantic Dry (Maritime) heathland is a key habitat in the Biodiversity Strategy for Jersey and can be found in both Noirmont and Portelet Common. This also has protected status under the EC Habitats Directive and is listed in Resolution No.4 of the Bern Convention.

The designation of much of the coastline as the Coastal National Park exemplifies the varied natural landscape which is present at the coast. Furthermore, the coastal waters around Jersey are internationally recognised under the Ramsar Convention, with the southeast Coast of Jersey composed of 32.1km2 of inter-tidal habitat.

The management intent of the SMP will seek to reduce interference to these sites, whilst ensuring that they are sufficiently protected in line with the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy.

Heritage

Activity on the Island has led to the development of over 4,000 culturally significant, historical sites and listed buildings – a range of which are located around the coastline. The historic landscape of the coast demonstrates the extent of human occupation, and the different ways in which the coast has been used in Jersey's history. These sites are legally recognised as sites which are significant to Jersey's heritage and contribute to the character of the Island through Island identity and have also become attractions to the community and visitors. Considering the importance of these sites is critical to managing the heritage value of the Island for future generations.

Heritage sites on the Island include the anti-tank walls. Although these walls were originally built with a very unique purpose, they now act as historical structures which prevent coastal flooding and erosion in some locations. This type of history is important in understanding the development of the Island, and the way in which our use of the coastline has changed over time. As such, it is the intention of the SMP to consider all opportunities to sustain the heritage value of all historic assets on the Island.

Landscape

All of the above aspects contribute to the unique landscape value of the Jersey coastline. The landscape quality draws together many activities associated with the coastline, providing a valuable asset to Islanders and the tourist economy.

3. Community

Community priorities and values affect the way the Island is used and appreciated, and the potential for future change. Developing a management plan which supports these community values in the long-term is key to achieving community acceptance, and achieving a sustainable SMP. This refers to key urban areas of the coastline, such as St Helier, as well as open space for agriculture and recreation, and residential and commercial properties which are situated along the coastline.

There are a number of coastal activities which are essential to the community on the Island. Jersey is reliant on ferry services, for both travel and commercial imports and exports. Major port, fishing and sailing activities are centred at St Helier, along with St Aubin's Harbour, and a number of small bays on the north coast including Bouley Bay and Bonne Nuit Harbour, and the east coast including Gorey Harbour and St Catherine's Bay. Coastal access to beaches such as St Ouen's Bay also provides an array of recreational activities, and access to the heritage sites discussed in Section 2.1.2 provides cultural value to the community.

There are large settlements located around the coastline, which rely on the local road networks for access to other parts of the Island; in areas of the south coast, these roads are at risk from coastal flooding and erosion. This has the potential to impact business continuity, access to homes, schools and amenities. Protecting these assets is integral to the future of Jersey; the SMP includes an appreciation for the interaction between these features, and their cumulative value to the community, in the assessment of the objectives in the policy option appraisal process.

4. Economy

Protecting the economic activity of the Island is a priority of the SMP, to support the Common Strategic Policy and the policies for economic growth detailed in the Island Plan. To maintain a sustainable and diverse economy, each sector which relies on facilities at the coast needs to be considered within the SMP to ensure there is opportunity for growth.

The largest business sector in terms of contribution to Gross Value Added (GVA) is the financial services sector, which accounted for 40% of the GVA in 2017. The performance of the financial sector has been central to the Island's economy since 1998. The financial hub for Jersey is located in St Helier and the SMP is required to provide policies which protect the continued growth of the financial sector there.

Both the open countryside and the coast of Jersey form a significant part of the Island's attraction to both residents and visitors, and a proportion of the visitor economy to Jersey relies on coastal tourism with unique coastal attractions such as La Corbiere Lighthouse and Mount Orgueil Castle, and an array of popular beaches. The SMP will promote policy decisions which ensure the sustainability of access to these sites, with the potential to enhance their value in the future. A proportion of visitors arrive through the Port of St Helier, further exemplifying the need for developing a plan which considers the future of St Helier.

Areas of the south coast around St Helier and Havre des Pas have been highlighted in the Island Plan for regeneration and / or development, which could influence future economic activity. Safeguarding these areas against coastal flooding and erosion through consideration in the SMP will be essential to supporting the Island Plan policies, and driving a sustainable economy forward.

2. Sustainable Policy

This SMP identifies how the coastline of Jersey can be managed sustainably, adapting to coastal flood and erosion risk for the next 100 years, with an understanding of the challenges caused by climate change and rising still water levels. This includes delivering wider benefits to the community, environment and economy as part of the SMP policies.

In 1987, the Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as "development which meets the needs of the present  without compromising  the ability  of  future  generations to  meet their  own  needs"[1]. The concept  of sustainability is adopted throughout Jersey's planning policy framework, particularly in the need to provide a co- ordinated response to environmental challenges that are predicted to impact development on the Island. It is therefore essential to develop a management plan which reduces pressure from coastal change, and benefits future development, considering natural processes, ecology, businesses and the financial sector, education, recreation, transport and homes.

One of the aims of the SMP is to identify policies which will manage risk with minimal impact to the environment and socio-economic development. For example, the most environmentally sustainable approach to managing the coastline is to not intervene, and let it respond in a dynamic way to the natural processes occurring. However, in some locations where there is a risk of coastal erosion and flooding, to not defend the coastline would be unsustainable for nature conservation and amenity, economic activity, future growth and the livelihoods of Islanders. As such, the Government of Jersey is committed to maintaining all existing coastal defences to minimise the potential impacts to the community, environment and economy in a responsible manner. This includes maintaining historical structures.

Notwithstanding commitments to maintain existing defences, the Government also advocates an adaptive approach to managing defences for long term sustainability benefits. This means alternative management solutions such as implementing property level resilience, increasing flood awareness and flood warning systems is more appropriate in some locations where altering the coast would have a detrimental effect on the sustainability of the plan, or affect other parts of the coastline i.e. implementation of improved defences is undertaken in a phased and balanced manner.

England will publish a new FCERM strategy in 2020. The Environment Agency intends to move away from a resistive' approach to coastal management to improve resilience, accepting that in some locations, settlements will need to be moved away from the coast to reduce the risks of coastal flooding and erosion. This will clearly have difficulties associated with it, not least in socio-economic and psychological terms for land and property owners. There are justifications for Jersey to follow the strategy laid out in this SMP, but to also do things differently compared to England, including:

• Jersey has a different funding approach for coastal defences compared to England and, with due diligence, is more able to support building new defences where there is significant risk to communities;

• The Island is small; losing land and moving settlements away from the coast would not be a practical solution, as there are agricultural land assets, open space and environmental designations inland, which are critical to the Island's resources and productivity; and,

• Maintenance of the coastal fringe is essential to protect residential, business and tourism assets, which are critical to the Island's functioning and economy.

It is recognised that in the longer term, settlement relocation could be discussed alongside other options, though this is not proposed as part of this plan. Resilience is recognised and incorporated in the SMP, as in England, within the policy option of Adaptive Management (see Section 1.3). For example, raising awareness of flooding and coastal erosion risk to the community will highlight the need for potential implementation of mitigation measures for properties in the future. Linking this to the planning policy framework will show where the resilience of communities will be improved.

3. Current Management Plans

1. Revised 2011 Island Plan (2014)

The Revised 2011 Island Plan[2] sets out the spatial planning policy for the Island, seeking to meet development needs whilst protecting the character, heritage and ecological assets of the Island, including the coastline. The plan highlights threats to the coastline from climate change, and the importance of future policies associated with coastal defence considering the character of the land.

The Island Plan policies given in Table 2-1 have been identified as key policies in supporting the preferred policy options.

Table 2-1: Island Plan policies relevant to the SMP development

2. Future Jersey

Future Jersey[3], the Island's long term vision, sets out the aims and objectives for development of the community, economy and environment in the long term, which align with the objectives of the SMP. Each of the ten objectives has a number of associated progress indicators, which identify ongoing actions. Four of the objectives listed in Table 2-2 are related to protecting the infrastructure and environment of Jersey for the future, which exemplifies the importance of maintaining the coastal defences around the Island.  

Table 2-2: Future Jersey Objectives relevant to the SMP policy development

3. Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy

The Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy (2008)[4] sets out the method of sustainably managing the coastline of Jersey. The strategy introduces a number of aims and objectives with expected outcomes, to measure the success of the strategy. One of the aims is to identify the potential threats to Jersey's coastal zone posed by climate change and consider appropriate actions for safety, well-being and economic interests of coastal communities. The aims and objectives of the SMP are likely to help meet this aim, through identifying the threats of flood risk and coastal erosion.

4. Previous Coastal Studies

A number of coastal studies and strategies have been developed for Jersey to assess and improve the coastal defences and management policy. The key documents in outlining the management of Jersey's coastline have been summarised below.

1. Jersey Coastal Management Study (1991)

HR Wallingford (1991)[5] completed an assessment of coastal defence condition and performance, which identified key coastal cells and processes, as well as the environmental conditions which influence the coastline. The risk of flooding from overtopping was determined, and used to recommend area for improving defences.

2. Coastal Defence Asset Management (2002)

This assessment by HR Wallingford (2002) built on the previous coastal management study to outline recommendations for future defence works to maintain or increase the current standard of protection. This report was adopted as the Government of Jersey Sea Defence Strategy, which mapped coastal defences around the Jersey coastline, and formed a database for Jersey's coastal defence asset management. Recommendations were also provided for future improvements up to 2012.

3. Climate Change, Jersey: Effects on Coastal Defences (2007)

As an update to the previous studies, HR Wallingford (2007)[6] produced this report on the potential consequences of climate change on flooding and coastal erosion in Jersey, to inform long term planning up to 2080. This was the first study on coastal management in Jersey to look at adaptive management for climate resilience, rather than basic maintenance of defences.

4. Sea Defence Strategy (2015)

The Sea Defence Strategy3 sets out the commitment to the development and delivery of sea defences around the Jersey coastline. It was updated in 2015 to detail the plan for capital investment and ongoing maintenance. It also outlines the changes to sea defences which will require adaption based on predicted impacts of climate change, and to highlight the actions needed to reduce flood risk at St Helier.

5. Development of Policy

1. Defining the Coastal Management Areas

Previous work by HR Wallingford (2007) divided the coastline into process units. The boundaries for the process units were driven by physical coastal processes, representing sections of the coast to be considered in impact assessments of policies, new works and existing infrastructure.

These process units have been redefined as Coastal Management Areas (CMAs) to provide a suitable mechanism to facilitate appraisal of policy options, including combining previous process units 1a and 1b (St Aubin and St Clement) to form the CMA 1 South Coast, as the flood risk impacts are similar. This strategic approach was required to ensure that future management provides holistic, sustainable and cost effective solutions for similar areas of the coastline. Six CMAs have been defined for the Jersey coastline (Table 2-3 and Figure 2-2).

Table 2-3: Overview of the Coastal Management Areas

Coastal  Geographic Extent  Area Characteristics Management Area

6 – St Brelade  Gorselands to the  Areas of undefended cliffs

eastern end of  St Brelade's Bay, Portelet Bay, Beauport Bay and Ouaisne Portelet Beach  Bay are popular beach locations

• La Cotte de St Brelade geological SSI

• Several ecological SSIs, including Portelet Common

2. Defining the Coastal Management Units

To ensure that management policies within the SMP are robust and sustainable at a local level, the CMAs were split into smaller CMUs. This helps to accommodate the local scale variations in present day land use, future land use and redevelopment, land ownership, coastal defence asset types and coastal flood and erosion risk management that exists within each CMA. The use of the CMUs enables flexibility to refine strategic decisions based on the CMAs such that they are appropriate on a local scale.

CMUs are defined as management units with consistent themes that help to facilitate and rationalise policy identification and appraisal. The following information was used to define and agree the CMU boundaries with the Government of Jersey:

• Draft SMP management policies;

• Current coastal defence assets and standards of protection;

• Coastal processes;

• Flood zones and mapping;

• Assets in potential flood and / or erosion risk zones;

• Land use and ownership;

• Cultural and environmental designations;

• Opportunities and constraints; and,

• Historical and current issues or concerns.

In total 36 CMUs were created along the Jersey coastline (Figure 2-2). Sections 4 to 9 provide a detailed policy appraisal for each CMU within the relevant CMA, identifying how the preferred policy option meets SMP objectives according to the assessment criteria, following the policy option appraisal approach in Section 3.

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 2-2: Coastal Management Areas and Coastal Management Units

January 2020  AECOM 17

3. Policy Option Appraisal Approach

This section outlines the process of policy development and appraisal for the coastline of Jersey. This demonstrates that the SMP has undergone a robust policy development process to confirm selection of preferred policies for managing coastal flood and erosion risk along the coastline for the next 100 years.

1. Comparison of Management Policies for Jersey

Four management policies have been considered for implementation in different areas of the Jersey coastline within the SMP. The physical structure of the coastline, the risk of flooding and coastal erosion, and land use of the Island all influence which management policies can be implemented.

1. Description of the physical structure and key features of the Island of Jersey

The coastline of Jersey provides an important part of the Island's character, and the variation in its physical structure provides a challenge in ensuring the most appropriate management policies are chosen.

There are large areas of natural coastline, particularly the north and southwest coasts which are characterised by steep granite cliffs and coastal heath. The south, southeast and west coast are characterised by shallow, gently sloping shore profiles with large intertidal areas which are exposed at low tide. The bays in these areas are important for recreational activities with significant population and assets, and therefore require appropriate management and protection compared to more natural areas of the coastline with no or less assets at risk. The Port of St Helier and the outlying harbours are key coastal locations for both recreational and commercial uses. Access to these locations should be maintained in any management policy.

The town of St Helier is the economic centre for the Island, and a key area for regeneration and development in Jersey in the future. The protection of the assets here is important, and further development of the town should be considered in the chosen management policy, as well as any implications on other economic development around the Island driven by St Helier.

There are several important ecological and geological sites around the Island which are recognised with designations, including the Coastal National Park and southeast coast Ramsar site, presented in Figure 2-1, along with listed buildings and sites of historical importance. The chosen management policy in these areas should not impact the value of these sites, but should provide protection where necessary.

2. Description of the No Active Intervention' policy

Under the No Active Intervention' policy, there will be no investment by the Government of Jersey in coastal defences or maintenance work. Unprotected shorelines will naturally evolve from their current state without intervention. This policy will generally be applied to natural areas of the coastline which are currently undefended, such as where sediments from cliffs are allowed to erode to feed beaches or to allow beach and dune systems to naturally adjust to changing conditions of climate change. The implementation and maintenance of private defences by third parties may be permitted within certain coastal management units according to the level of flooding and erosion risk, and subject to prevailing Jersey laws and regulations. Further details on private defences are provided in the relevant CMUs, as detailed in sections 4 to 9.

3. Description of the Maintain the Defence Line' policy

Under the Maintain the Defence Line' policy, existing coastal defences are maintained. The level of flood protection may decrease over time as flood risk increases due to the changing coastal processes and impacts of climate change. This policy will generally be applied where the existing defences provide a reasonable standard of flood protection or prevent erosion.

4. Description of the Adaptive Management' policy

Under the Adaptive Management' policy, coastal flood and erosion risk will be proactively managed. The policy will be delivered through various management schemes / initiatives depending on the level of risk and the circumstances. This could include improving the standard of flood protection for an existing sea defence, constructing new defences, raising awareness of local flood risk or recommending property level flood protection. In areas of the coastline where flooding and coastal erosion is predicted to cause minimal economic damage to assets, but where there is still a residual risk to the community, there is an opportunity for a considered risk approach to management. For example, community awareness schemes rather than hard defences could be implemented as a form of adaptive management in the first instance. The risks of this measured approach would be considered carefully to avoid detriment to the community in the short term. This policy could be applied to areas of Jersey where there is sufficient risk of flooding or coastal erosion that cannot be prevented by maintaining the defences to the current standard of protection, and where it is economically unfavourable to construct new defences with a higher standard of protection. It may also be implemented in areas where there are currently no coastal defences, and where the risk of flooding and coastal erosion is predicted to cause damage to the community, environment or economy at some stage in the future.

5. Description of the Advance the Line' policy

Under the Advance the Line' policy, new sea defences are built seaward of existing defences. This policy will only be implemented in areas where there is a significant risk of coastal flooding or erosion, or where it will deliver additional benefits for the community, environment and economy, such as creating a new amenity space. This policy is distinguished from Adaptive Management' as a standalone policy option to make the type of adaptation clear.

2. Policy Option Assessment Scoring and Criteria

This assessment approach considers the relative merits and appropriateness of each of the four policy options using a simple, consistent, and systematic scoring routine. For each CMU, each policy option is scored for each epoch against 21 objectives in four core themes of defence, community, environment and economy. The objectives are in line with those set out in Section 1.1, and have been developed to align with the Island Plan Policies set out in Table 2-1, the objectives of Future Jersey in Table 2-2 and the Common Strategic Priorities. The four core themes are outlined below:

1. The Defence objectives reflect the engineering of coastal defences, to assess the ability of the policy option to provide defence against flooding and coastal erosion, and feasibility of the policy option with regards to technical implementation, cost and maintenance.
2. The Community objectives reflect the value of the coastline to the community and stakeholders, in terms of services provided by the coastal infrastructure, to assess the ability of the policy option to maintain access to coastal services.
3. The Environment objectives reflect the importance of the natural environment of Jersey, to assess the impact of the policy options on natural environmental and heritage designations, as well as the landscape character of Jersey and the provision of natural resources.
4. The Economy objectives reflect the potential for improvements to the business environment of Jersey. They consider the potential of the policy options to provide opportunities for businesses to prosper and generate economic growth and support land allocation and residential and commercial development on the Island.

The scoring of each policy option is completed on a 3 point (0, 1, 2) basis, with 0 points indicating that the policy option would not support the objective and may be detrimental, and is given a red' classification, 1 point is equivalent to an amber' classification and 2 points indicating the policy option would have a positive impact on the objective, given a green' classification. The scores for each objective are added together within each of the four core themes. Each core theme has an equal weighting to remove bias where there is an unequal number of objectives in each theme. The scores from each theme are added together, and the policy option with the highest overall score has been selected as the preferred policy option. To demonstrate the approach, a worked example has been included for CMU 1.6, St Helier, below.

Sections 4 to 9 detail the preferred policy for each epoch at each CMU, showing the coastal flood and erosion risk, explaining how the preferred policy option meets the objectives and how the preferred policy will be implemented. The 21 objectives in the four core themes, their full assessment criteria and the full scoring for each CMU are presented in C.

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Objective Scoring Weighting Overall Score

Each  column  represents  one  objective  in  the  four  Within each theme, the scores for the objectives are  The maximum score for each theme is 25%, and the themes, scored according to the assessment criteria,  added together and divided by the maximum possible  theme scores are added together in the Overall Score using Green (2 points, positive impact), Amber (1 point)  score for the theme, multiplied by 0.25 to give each  column. The policy option with the highest overall score and Red (0 points, negative impact).  theme a percentage score with an equal weighting.  is the preferred policy option (highlighted row).

Epoch

In  each  row,  each policy option is scored for  each  epoch. Below  is  an explanation  of  the scoring for epoch 1.

Defence  Community Environment Economy

Maintain the Defence Line scores the  Adaptive Management and Maintain The Defence Line scores  Maintain  the  Defence  Line  highest as it is the policy option most  Advance the Line score the

the highest, as it is the policy option  scores the highest, as it is the  likely  to  maintain  protection  of  highest, as they present the with the most positive impacts on the  policy option most likely to be  designated sites and resources, and  most opportunities for the objectives, and presents less risk to  accepted by the community and  will produce less carbon emissions  business environment and coastal erosion and flooding than No  stakeholders  and  maintain  than  Adaptive  Management  and  development policies. Active Intervention.

Sc access to coastal infrastructure.  Advance the Line.

January 2020  AECOM 20

3. Economic Assessment

As part of the policy option assessment scoring to determine the relative cost of each policy option, an economic assessment was undertaken (Appendix D). This demonstrates the economic viability of the preferred policy options and potential delivery of the schemes.

This is demonstrated by a damage assessment, which determines the potential flooding and coastal erosion damages that would occur over the next 100 years under the Present Management Scenario. This includes direct damages to properties (residential and non-residential), and indirect damages (including vehicles, roads and evacuation costs). As part of this damage assessment, a qualitative assessment has also been undertaken to assess the impacts of flooding that cannot be easily quantified, including the potential impact of flooding on port functionality, energy security and recreation. A business disruption assessment has also been completed to determine the impacts of flooding on business continuity, in the form of Gross Value Added (GVA) figures.

The damage assessment has been undertaken in line with Flooding and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Appraisal Guidance (FCERM-AG, 2010), developed by the Environment Agency for England, and the Multi- Coloured Manual (MCM). However, the damage values have been uplifted by 24% to account for the differences in land value between Jersey and England, as proposed in the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS, 2015).

As part of the economic assessment, the benefits of implementing the preferred policy options at each CMU have been established. These benefits are based on the direct and indirect damages avoided by the management policy. In addition, the costs of implementing the policy options have been established. This gives a benefit cost ratio, which provides a rational and systematic framework for assessing the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred policy option.

As it is the intent of the Government of Jersey to maintain all existing defences as a minimum, economic benefits (and benefit cost ratios) have only been calculated where the preferred policy option is Adaptive Management or Advance the Line. For each CMU where Adaptive Management or Advance the Line has been selected as the preferred policy option, an economic summary is provided which includes the number of properties predicted to be at risk of flooding and coastal erosion over the next 100 years, and the economic benefits and costs of implementing the plan. The benefits and costs for CMUs are presented in whole life terms that incorporate UK Treasury Green Book discount factors over the 100-year appraisal period and result in values being expressed in Present Value' terms. The total PV cost of implementing the SMP over 100 years is approximately £79 million.

In cash terms, with no discounting, the cost of delivering the SMP is approximately £198 million over the 100 years. The majority of the money is proposed to be spent in the second and third epochs, approximately £84.5 and £77 million, respectively, resulting in approximately £36.5 million forecast to be spent in the first epoch.

Further detail about the methodology for determining the potential economic damages of flooding and coastal erosion, benefits of the preferred policies and costs of implementing these policies can be found in Appendix D.

4. Coastal Management Area 1 – South Coast (CMA1)

Coastal Management Area 1 encompasses the coastal area of St Aubin and St Clement, along the southern coastline of Jersey. This includes the capital of St Helier, the key residential and urban centre for the Island, and a significant commercial port with ferry terminal and marina facilities. This area is a driver for future development, recognised in the Island Plan. Throughout this area there are residential and commercial properties at risk of flooding, which presents challenges in management as it is important to the community to maintain access to the coast, and access to travel infrastructure on both land and sea. Figure 4-1 shows the risk of flooding and coastal erosion at the South Coast, and Figure 4-2 shows the selected policies for each CMU.

Table 4-1: Coastal Management Area 1 - South Coast

Figure 4-1: Coastal Flooding and Erosion Risk for Coastal Management Area 1 – South Coast

Figure 4-2: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 1 - South Coast

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

1. Coastal Management Unit 1.1 (Noirmont Common)

Coastal Management Unit 1.1 (Noirmont Common) spans from the eastern end of Portelet Beach to the northern end of Noirmont Common. Though the unit is undefended, there is negligible flood and coastal erosion risk and no properties or critical infrastructure assets are at risk. The policy options considered in CMU 1.1 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-1). The preferred policy option for this unit is No Active Intervention for all three epochs.

The preferred policy recognises the natural and environmental importance of Noirmont Common, the coastline of which is composed of both hard and soft cliffs which are part of the south-west headland heaths. Noirmont Common forms part of the Coastal National Park, and is a listed Ecological SSI under the protection of the State of Jersey; protecting SSI land to support the natural environment is one of the listed outcomes in the Future Jersey. It is composed of coastal heathland which is a key habitat in the Biodiversity Strategy for Jersey, and contains Atlantic Dry (Maritime) heathland which is listed in both Resolution No.4 of the Bern Convention and Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive.

The management intent will maintain the status of ecological processes and the landscape value of the area, without introducing new infrastructure which could compromise the character of the coastline. It supports policies SP 4, NE 1, NE 8 and SCO 4 in the Island Plan, recognising the importance of Noirmont Common to the community, in terms of maintaining the current level of coastal access. This also contributes towards the Future Jersey objective of promoting health and wellbeing through continued recreation in the area.

This policy is anticipated to have negligible impact on the economic objectives, as Noirmont Common is a natural habitat with significant environmental value, and therefore limited opportunities for economic development.

Figure 4-3: Aerial view of the picturesque coastal landscape at Noirmont Common (CMU 1.1)[1]

January 2020  AECOM 26

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-4: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.1 (Noirmont Common)

November 2019  AECOM 27

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

2. Coastal Management Unit 1.2 (Belcroute Bay)

Coastal Management Unit 1.2 (Belcroute Bay) comprises the coastline directly in front of Noirmont Manor; the coastline is defended by a vertical, masonry wall, and there is negligible flood and coastal erosion risk to the properties and transport infrastructure. The policy options considered in CMU 1.2 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-2). The preferred policy option for this unit is Maintain the Defence Line for all three epochs.

The preferred policy will maintain the defences to provide consistent flood defence to Noirmont Manor as a heritage site and Grade III Listed Building, with cultural and landscape value. The management intent will maintain the value of Noirmont Manor, maintaining the defences to provide consistent flood defence, without introducing new infrastructure which could compromise the heritage value of the coastline; supporting policies SP 4 and HE 1 of the Island Plan to give high priority to the Island's natural and historic environment. This will also recognise the importance of Belcroute Bay to the community, and maintain the current level of coastal access.

The preferred policy is anticipated to have negligible impact on the economic objectives; however continued maintenance of the coastal defences supports the Future Jersey objective to protect the built and historic environment, which includes protecting listed buildings and other heritage assets.

Figure 4-5: Vertical masonry wall at Belcroute Bay (CMU 1.2)

January 2020  AECOM 28

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-6: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.2 (Belcroute Bay)

January 2020  AECOM 29

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

3. Coastal Management Unit 1.3 (La Housse)

Coastal Management Unit 1.3 (La Housse) spans from Belcroute Bay to the southern end of the coastal defences at Pebble Beach, at St Aubin's Harbour. Though the unit is mostly undefended, there is negligible flood and some coastal erosion risk but no properties or critical infrastructure assets are at risk. The policy options considered in CMU 1.3 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-3). The preferred policy option for this unit is No Active Intervention for all three epochs.

The preferred policy recognises the natural and environmental importance of La Housse; the area includes Belcroute Geological SSI, which contains important sediments from two glacial and an interglacial period. The policy management intent will maintain the status of ecological and geological processes and the landscape value of the area, without introducing new infrastructure which could compromise the character of the coastline. This will support the Future Jersey objective to support the natural environment, protecting the land of Belcroute SSI, and giving priority to its protection in line with Policy SP 4 of the Island Plan.

The preferred policy is anticipated to have negligible impact on the economic objectives as La Housse is an area of natural coastline with limited opportunities for economic development.

 Figure 4-7: View of the coastline at CMU 1.3 (La Housse)

January 2020  AECOM 30

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-8: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.3 (La Housse)

January 2020  AECOM 31

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

4. Coastal Management Unit 1.4 (St Aubin's Harbour)

Coastal Management Unit 1.4 (St Aubin's Harbour) comprises the coastline in front of the old town of St Aubin, including St Aubin's Harbour and Breakwater, and St Aubin's Fort ecological SSI. The area is partially defended by masonry coastal defences, but properties behind the harbour are still subject to overtopping flood risk and flooding from still water levels from a 1:20 year flood event in the present day. The policy options considered in CMU 1.4 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-4).

The preferred policy for this unit is Adaptive Management for epoch 1. This will include implementing a community awareness scheme to reduce and enable better preparation for the impacts of flooding on the community, and implementing some new coastal defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection. In epoch 2, the management intent is a dual policy of Adaptive Management and Advance the Line; this will involve improving all the existing defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection as a minimum. In some areas, the defence line will be advanced further out to sea where necessary. The preferred policy option will be Maintain the Defence Line for epoch 3, involving proactive maintenance of the new and existing defences by to 2120.

The dual policy here in epoch 2 ensures that the area around St Aubin's Harbour is protected from the impacts of flooding, and provides an opportunity for moving the defence line forward where it is both appropriate for the community, and serves a purpose. This purpose could be providing better protection where the flood risk is greater, and more land for business development and economic growth – which could support Island Plan Policy SP 5. This has the potential to beneficially impact the wider economy, developing business opportunities here to support the urban environment.

The preferred policy recognises the importance of St Aubin's Harbour as a key recreational attraction for leisure and fishing, and hence any coastal defences implemented in epoch 1 would be complimentary to the existing facilities, and access to the frontage (supporting Policy NE 8), helping to encourage community and stakeholder ambitions. Improved signage regarding overtopping flood risk in the present day could be positioned in key areas to make coastal users aware of impacts to access and travel infrastructure during storm events. In epoch 2 a more comprehensive sea defence scheme along the entirety of the frontage could be developed that would provide the longer term protection from overtopping and still water level flood risk, which includes raising the standard of protection to 1:200.

There are nine listed buildings with heritage value along Le Boulevard, mostly Grade III and IV residential properties. The management intent will provide protection to these properties, benefitting the cultural and heritage value of the area without introducing new infrastructure which could interfere with the coastline in the present day. Improving the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection in epoch 2 will minimise the impact of flooding on these assets, and provides time to integrate the defence into the community aspirations. This supports the Future Jersey objective to support the built and historic environment, which includes protecting listed buildings and other heritage assets, and the Island Plan policies SP 4 and HE 1.

The number of properties at risk from flooding at St Aubin's Harbour are shown for each return period event in Table 4-2, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated.

Table 4-2: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.4 (St Aubin's Harbour)

January 2020  AECOM 32

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-9: Coastal Flood risk at CMU1.4 (St Aubin's Harbour)

January 2020  AECOM 33

Figure 4-10: Existing coastal defences at St Aubin's Harbour (CMU 1.4)

Figure 4-11: St Aubin's Harbour (CMU 1.4)

5. Coastal Management Unit 1.5 (St Aubin's Bay)

Coastal Management Unit 1.5 (St Aubin's Bay) spans from the northern end of St Aubin's Harbour to the eastern end of St Aubin's Bay defences at St Helier. There are a range of defences along the coastline but it is still subject to overtopping flood risk, particularly at Beaumont and Milbrook from a 1:1 year flood event in the present day. La Neuve Route Victoria Avenue is also predicted to be at risk of flooding from still water levels in epoch 2 from a 1:200 year flood event, due to rising still water levels. The policy options considered in CMU 1.5 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-5).

The preferred policy for this unit is Adaptive Management for epoch 1. This will include implementing a community awareness scheme to reduce and enable better preparation for the impacts of flooding on the community, and implementing some new coastal defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection. In epoch 2, the management intent is a dual policy of Adaptive Management and Advance the Line; this will involve improving all the existing defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection as a minimum. In some areas, the defence line will be advanced seaward where necessary. The preferred policy option will be Maintain the Defence Line for epoch 3, involving proactive maintenance of the new and existing defences to 2120. The new recurve wall at Gunsite (Figure 4-13) Is a good example of how adaptive management might look in this coastal management unit.

The dual policy here ensures that the entirety of St Aubin's Bay is protected from the impacts of flooding, and provides an opportunity for moving the defence line forward where it is both appropriate for the community, and serves a purpose. This purpose could be providing better protection where the flood risk is greater, and more land for business development and economic growth – which could support Island Plan Policy SP 5. This has the potential to beneficially impact the wider economy, developing business opportunities here to support the urban environment in St Helier particularly.

The preferred policy option recognises the importance of St Aubin's Bay as a popular recreational location, with residential areas situated behind the bay, and hence any sea defence scheme would be complimentary to these features. Improved signage regarding overtopping flood risk in the present day could be positioned in key areas to make coastal users aware of impacts to access and travel infrastructure during storm events. In epoch 2, implementing coastal defence structures along the entirety of the frontage would provide longer term protection from overtopping and still water level flood risk, at a 1:200 year standard of protection. This would protect the road infrastructure along the La Neuve Route and Victoria Avenue, supporting Island Plan Policy TT 13, with a potential to improve the Island's footpath and cycle network to support policy TT 1. There are ten listed buildings with heritage value along La Route de la Haule, and the management intent will provide protection to these sites to protect the cultural and heritage value, though any defences will be in keeping with the character of the coastline. Implementing some coastal defences in epoch 1, and a further scheme in epoch 2, will minimise the impact of flooding on these assets, and provides time to integrate the defence into the community aspirations. This is also important in terms of the Future Jersey objectives, and the Island Plan policies SP 4 and HE 1.

The number of properties at risk from flooding at St Aubin's Bay are shown for each return period event in Table 4-3, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated.

Table 4-3: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.5 (St Aubin's Bay)

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-12: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.5 (St Aubin's Bay)

January 2020  AECOM 37

Figure 4-13: Recurve wall design at Gunsite, St Aubin's Bay (CMU 1.5)

Figure 4-14: Sloping masonry wall at St Aubin's Bay (CMU 1.5)

6. Coastal Management Unit 1.6 (St Helier)

Coastal Management Unit 1.6 (St Helier) comprises the coastline in front of the town of St Helier. This includes the key commercial and ferry port of St Helier, which has significant infrastructure for the transport of goods to and from Jersey. Areas around the Port of St Helier are subject to flooding from a 1:1 year flood event in the present day. The policy options considered in CMU 1.6 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-6).

The preferred policy option for this unit is Maintain the Defence Line for epoch 1, Adaptive Management in epoch 2 followed by Maintain the Defence Line in epoch 3. This policy option will involve no changes being implemented to the infrastructure around the Port in the present day, and then new defence structures implemented in 2040 to a 1:200 year standard of protection to manage the flood risk; these defences will be maintained up to 2120. It should be noted that this management approach does not currently include for any works that the Ports of Jersey may undertake by 2040. The new defences in 2040 could be implemented at a setback alignment behind the Port of St Helier (in the absence of an integrated defence alignment between the Government of Jersey and Ports of Jersey), with a potential plan for this defence line shown in Figure 4-15. While this setback alignment would leave residual flood risk in front, this should be managed by the Ports of Jersey and will not be funded by the Government of Jersey. The only residual flood risk in the present day will impact the area managed by the Ports of Jersey.

The preferred policy recognises the importance of St Helier as the residential and urban centre of Jersey, which acts as an economic driver for all development across the Island. The development of St Helier is a principal focus of land-use planning and development within the Island Plan, supporting Policy SP 5 to provide economic growth and diversification. The delivery of development projects in St Helier will benefit from these defences, providing protection to the reclaimed land of the St Helier Waterfront, and protecting the connection between the town and the seafront. Furthermore, the defences will protect the transport infrastructure which is vital to St Helier – including roads, footpaths and cycle networks (supporting policies TT 1 and TT 13).

Implementing new coastal defences in epoch 2 will protect the qualities and value that the town already possesses, and support the development of new opportunities in these locations. This is also highlighted in the Future Jersey, in the objectives of creating an attractive business environment, creating jobs and growth and protecting the built and historic environment. There are hundreds of listed buildings within St Helier; the defences built from 2040 onwards will be designed with consideration to visual appearance, contributing to the overall aesthetic of the town and in keeping with the historic built environment, to reflect the cultural development of St Helier, and supports the Island Plan policies SP 4 and HE 1.

Introducing new defences in the epoch 2 provides time to integrate the defence into community aspirations, and can be built to fit with stakeholder needs in line with new development in these regeneration areas. This also has the potential to facilitate opportunities for further development in the future. Some heritage sites within St Helier are located close to the Port, and would be situated in front of the new setback defence alignment. This has the potential to conflict with the aforementioned policies in the Island Plan, and requires investigation and innovative solutions to be developed to ensure that all heritage assets are protected where possible.

The number of properties at risk from flooding at St Helier are shown for each return period event in Table 4-4, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated.

Table 4-4: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.6 (St Helier)

Figure 4-15: Port of St Helier (CMU 1.6)

Figure 4-16: Aerial view of the coastline at St Helier (CMU 1.6)

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-17: Coastal Flood risk at CMU1.6 (St Helier)

January 2020  AECOM 42

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

7. Coastal Management Unit 1.7 (La Collette)

Coastal Management Unit 1.7 (La Collette) comprises the reclaimed land of La Collette, next to the port of St Helier. There is negligible risk of flooding and coastal erosion to La Collette. The policy options considered in CMU 1.7 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-7). The preferred policy option for this unit is Maintain the Defence Line for all three epochs.

The preferred policy recognises that La Collette is an industrial area with some commercial properties which house potentially hazardous materials – such as Gas and oil terminals, LPG manufacturing plant, power station, energy recovery facility and bus depot. Defences will be maintained here to provide long term protection from flood risk which is driven from higher still water levels.

The coastline at La Collette forms part of the southeast coast Ramsar site, and South Hill Geological SSI site behind La Collette, which provides ecological value to the natural environment. The management intent is to provide maintained protection to this site up to 2120, to minimise the impact of flooding on these environmental assets. This will support the Future Jersey objective to support the natural environment, and the Island Plan Policy SP 4.

La Collette is highlighted in the Island Plan as a potential area for regeneration, forming part of the town of St Helier, and could provide economic growth in support of Island Plan Policy SP 5. The preferred policy option has the greatest  potential  to  support  this,  providing  continued  protection  to  facilitate  further  industrial  development throughout the plan period. Although the Buncefield restrictions[1] have reduced the potential for development at La Collette, the management intent will provide maintained protection to hazardous materials which are stored here. This will support the delivery of broader outcomes and business opportunities in the urban environment in St Helier, and could beneficially impact other infrastructure in the area and wider area through the redevelopment.

January 2020  AECOM 43

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-18: Coastal Flood risk at CMU1.7 (La Collette)

January 2020  AECOM 44

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

8. Coastal Management Unit 1.8 (Havre des Pas)

Coastal Management Unit 1.8 (Havre des Pas) has a range of defences at the coastline but is still subject to overtopping flood risk along the promenade from a 1:1 year flood event in the present day. Residential areas stretching inland as far as Bagot Road are predicted to be at risk of flooding from still water levels from a 1:200 year flood event in the present day. In this location, some flow routes are limited by the presence of de-facto defences in the form of properties. The policy options considered in CMU 1.8 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-8). The preferred option for this unit is a dual policy of Adaptive Management and Advance the Line in epoch 1. This will involve improving the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection in the present day, and in some localised areas at Havre des Pas the defence line could be advanced into the sea. The seaward advance distance would be based on the findings of appropriate engineering and environmental assessments and be subject to public consultation. The preferred policy option for epochs 2 and 3 will be Maintain the Defence Line, up to 2120.

The preferred policy option recognises the importance of Havre des Pas as a popular beach location which includes the Havre des Pas Bathing Pool, and hence any sea defence scheme would be complimentary to the existing facilities at the promenade, and access to the frontage, helping to support community and stakeholder ambitions. This would also support Island Plan Policy NE 8 and provide health and wellbeing benefits in support of the Future Jersey objective. Coastal defences developed in epoch 1 along the entirety of the frontage would provide long term protection from flood risk driven by both overtopping and still water levels.

The coastline here forms part of the southeast coast Ramsar site, inland ecological SSI La Rue des Prés is located here, and there are over 30 listed buildings with heritage value. The management intent is to provide protection to these sites in a way which integrates defences into the coastline, meeting community aspirations. This will benefit the cultural and heritage value of the area, supporting the Future Jersey objectives and the Island Plan policies NE 1, NE 6, SP 4 and HE 1.

The preferred policy option has the greatest potential to support plans and opportunities for economic growth in Havre des Pas, as it is recognised in the Island Plan as a small urban centre. Providing better protection to businesses will facilitate opportunities for investment. This will support the delivery of broader outcomes and business opportunities in the urban environment in St Helier, and could beneficially impact other infrastructure in the area and wider area through the redevelopment.

The number of properties at risk from flooding at Havre des Pas are shown for each return period event in Table 4-5, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated.

Table 4-5: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.8 (Havre des Pas)

January 2020  AECOM 45

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-19: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.8 (Havre des Pas)

January 2020  AECOM 46

Figure 4-20: Existing coastal defences at Havre des Pas (CMU 1.8)

9. Coastal Management Unit 1.9 (La Greve d'Azette)

Coastal Management Unit 1.9 (La Greve d'Azette) has a range of defences protecting against the risk of coastal flooding and erosion, though it is still subject to overtopping flood risk at La Mare from a 1:200 year flood event in the present day. This flood risk is expected to continue into the future due to rising still water levels. The policy options considered in CMU 1.9 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-9). The preferred policy option for this unit is Adaptive Management in epochs 1 and 2 and Maintain the Defence Line in epoch 3, up to 2120.

This will involve implementing community awareness schemes during the epoch 1 to reduce and enable better preparation for the impacts of flooding on the community, and then engaging with the community about ways to improve the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection, in locations where assets are at risk, in epoch 2 and maintain it in the future up to 2120. Improved signage regarding overtopping flood risk in the present day could be positioned in key areas to make coastal users aware of impacts to access and travel infrastructure during storm events. In epoch 2 a more comprehensive sea defence scheme along the frontage of La Mare could be developed that would provide the longer term protection from flood risk.

The coastline here forms part of the southeast coast Ramsar site, and there are 11 listed buildings with heritage value, as well as Green Island Geological SSI – a site with excellent exposures of geological deposits such as loess and glacial head. Improving the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection in epoch 2 will minimise the impact of flooding on these environmental assets, and provides time to integrate the defence into the community aspirations. This supports the Future Jersey objectives to support the built and historic environment and the natural environment, and the Island Plan policies SP 4, NE 1 and HE 1. The preferred policy option has potential to support plans and opportunities for economic growth by providing better awareness of flooding in the present day, and protection to businesses in epoch 2, facilitating investment opportunities.

The number of properties at risk from flooding at La Greve d'Azette are shown for each return period event in Table 4-6, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated. The Benefit Cost Ratio is low as there are few properties at risk, though new coastal defences would need to be built along the length of the frontage.

Table 4-6: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.9 (La Greve d'Azette)

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-21: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.9 (La Greve d'Azette)

January 2020  AECOM 50

Figure 4-22: Coastline at La Greve d'Azette (CMU 1.9)

10. Coastal Management Unit 1.10 (Le Hocq / Pontac)

Coastal Management Unit 1.10 (Le Hocq / Pontac) has a range of coastal defences but is still subject to overtopping flood risk at Le Hocq from a 1:1 year flood event in the present day. Le Hocq is also predicted to be at risk of flooding from still water levels in epoch 3 from a 1:200 year flood event, due to rising still water levels. Between Green Island and Le Hocq, there is risk of erosion due to the soft geology, according to the analysis in Appendix B, which suggests a whole island annual average rate of erosion of 0.3m per year from visual analysis of the historic aerial imagery between 2003 and 2017.

The policy options considered in CMU 1.10 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-10). The preferred policy option for this unit is Adaptive Management in epochs 1 and 2 and Maintain the Defence Line in epoch 3, up to 2120. This will involve implementing community awareness schemes during epoch 1 to reduce and enable better preparation for the impacts of flooding on the community, and then engaging with the community to improve the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection in epoch 2. Improved signage regarding overtopping flood risk in the present day could be positioned in key areas to make coastal users aware of impacts to access and travel infrastructure at La Grande Route de la Cote during storm events. In epoch 2 new defences along the frontage at Le Hocq could provide long term protection from flood risk. These works would then be maintained in epoch 3 to the required standard of protection.

The coastline forms part of the southeast coast Ramsar site, and there are over 30 listed buildings that have heritage value. The management intent is to improve the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection in epoch 2 to minimise the impact of flooding on these environmental assets, and provides time to integrate the defence into the community aspirations. This supports the Future Jersey objectives to support the built and historic environment and the natural environment, and the Island Plan policies SP 4 and HE 1. The preferred policy option has the greatest potential to support plans and opportunities for economic growth by providing better awareness of flooding in the present day, and protection to businesses here in epoch 2 to facilitate opportunities for investment.

The number of properties at risk from flooding at Le Hocq / Pontac are shown for each return period event in Table 4-7, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated. The Benefit Cost Ratio is low as there are few properties at risk, though new coastal defences would need to be built along the length of the frontage.

Table 4-7: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 1.10 (Le Hocq / Pontac)

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 4-23 :Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU1.10 (Le Hocq / Pontac)

January 2020  AECOM 54

Figure 4-24: Existing defences at Le Hocq / Pontac (CMU 1.10)

5. Coastal Management Area 2 – Grouville Bay (CMA2)

Coastal Management Area 2 encompasses the coastal area of Grouville Bay, extending up to Mont Orgueil Castle. This includes popular recreational locations such as Gorey Harbour and La Rocque Harbour. Most of the coastline is defended, and there are small areas of flood risk across the area. Mont Orgueil Castle provides historical and cultural value to the area, and there are also several sites of ecological and geological importance such as Grouville Marsh SSI, which require protection from flooding. The coastline is also part of the southeast coast Ramsar site. Figure 5-2 shows the risk of flooding and coastal erosion at Grouville Bay, and Figure 5-3 shows the selected policies for each CMU.

Table 5-1: Coastal Management Area 2 - Grouville Bay

Figure 5-1: Grouville Bay Coastline

Figure 5-2: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at Coastal Management Area 2 – Grouville Bay

Figure 5-3: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 2 - Grouville Bay

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

1. Coastal Management Unit 2.1 (Royal Bay of Grouville )

Coastal Management Unit 2.1 (Royal Bay of Grouville ) encompasses the east coast of Jersey, from La Rocque to Gorey Harbour. There is no risk of coastal erosion, though it is subject to flood risk from overtopping flood risk at La Rocque and Le Hurel from a 1:20 flood event in the present day. Le Hurel is also predicted to be at risk of flooding from still water levels in epoch 3 from a 1:200 year flood event, due to rising still water levels. The policy options considered in CMU 2.1 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-11).

The preferred policy option for this unit is Adaptive Management in epochs 1 and 2 and Maintain in epoch 3, up to 2120. This will involve implementing community awareness schemes during epoch 1 to reduce and enable better preparation for the impacts of flooding on the community, and then engaging with the community about ways to improve the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection in epoch 2. Improved signage regarding overtopping flood risk in the present day could be positioned in key areas to make coastal users aware of impacts to access and travel infrastructure during storm events. In epoch 2 the defences along the frontage would be improved to provide long term protection from flood risk.

The coastline here forms part of the southeast coast Ramsar site, and is included in the Coastal National Park; Grouville Marsh ecological SSI is also situated in the area, behind the Royal Jersey Golf Club. La Rocque Harbour, a popular recreational harbour with cultural value, is situated at the start of the CMU. The management intent is to provide protection to these sites in the present day, benefitting the cultural and heritage value of the area without introducing new infrastructure which could compromise the character of the coastline. Improving the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection in epoch 2 will minimise the impact of flooding on these environmental assets. This supports the Future Jersey objective to support the natural environment, which includes protecting SSIs and the coastline, and Island Plan policies SP 4, NE 1 and NE 6. The preferred policy option has the greatest potential to support plans and opportunities for economic growth by providing better awareness of flooding in the present day, and protection to businesses here in epoch 2 to facilitate opportunities for investment.

The number of properties at risk from flooding along the Royal Bay of Grouville are shown for each return period event in Table 5-2, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated. The predicted Benefit Cost Ratio is low as there are very few properties at risk, new coastal defences would need to be built along the length of the frontage.

Table 5-2: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 2.1 (Royal Bay of Grouville )

January 2020  AECOM 59

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 5-4: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 2.1 (Royal Bay of Grouville )

January 2020  AECOM 60

Figure 5-5: Views of the coastline at the Royal Bay of Grouville (CMU 2.1)

2. Coastal Management Unit 2.2(Gorey Harbour)

Coastal Management Unit 2.2 (Gorey Harbour) is constrained to the coastline in front of Gorey Harbour and Mont Orgueil Castle. Gorey Harbour is partially defended by a vertical granite wall and there is limited risk of coastal erosion, but is still subject to flooding from still water levels in the present day from a 1:1 year flood event. The policy options considered in CMU 2.2 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-12).

The preferred policy option for this unit is Maintain the Defence Line in epoch 1, Adaptive Management in epoch 2, and Maintain the Defence Line in epoch 3. This will involve proactively maintaining the existing defences to the current standard of protection up to 2040, and then improving the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection, and maintaining the new defences up to 2120.

The preferred policy recognises the environmental and heritage importance of Gorey Harbour, and Mont Orgueil Castle as an Ecological SSI, and intends to maintain the status of ecological and geological processes and the landscape value of the area, without introducing new infrastructure in the present day when it is not necessary. This will also recognise the importance of Gorey Harbour to the community, in terms of maintaining the current level of coastal access, and contribution to health and wellbeing through recreation in the area. Improving the defences to a 1:200 year standard of protection in the epoch 2 will minimise the impact of flooding on these assets, and provides time to integrate the defence into the community aspirations.

The  preferred  policy  is  anticipated  to  have  negligible  impact  on  economic  objectives;  however  continued maintenance of the coastal defences has the potential to secure contributions from stakeholders in supporting the Future Jersey objectives to support the built and historic environment and natural environment, which includes protecting heritage assets, SSIs and the coastline. This is also a part of Policy SP 4 in the Island Plan, which seeks to give high priority to the protection of the Island's natural and historic environment, and HE 1 to protect listed buildings and places Improving protection to Gorey Harbour in the future also has the potential to secure contributions from stakeholders, by protecting the recreational value of the site.

The number of properties at risk from flooding at Gorey Harbour are shown for each return period event in Table 5-3, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated.

Table 5-3: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 2.2 (Gorey Harbour)

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 5-6: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 2.2 (Gorey Harbour)

January 2020  AECOM 64

Figure 5-7: Gorey Harbour (CMU 2.2)

6. Coastal Management Area 3 – St Catherine's (CMA3)

Coastal Management Area 3 encompasses most of the coastline of the Parish of Saint Martin, extending from Mont Orgueil Castle to La Coupe. This includes popular locations such as Anne Port Bay, Archirondel Tower and St Catherine's Breakwater. The coastline forms part of the Coastal National Park, and there are several heritage sites of historical significance, St Catherine's Tower which is a Grade I listed building. There are small areas of flood risk from overtopping close to Archirondel Tower, which will impact the determination of the preferred policy option. Figure 6-1 shows the risk of flooding and coastal erosion at St Catherine's, and Figure 6-2 shows the selected policies for each CMU.

Table 6-1: Coastal Management Area 3 - St Catherine's

Figure 6-1: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at Coastal Management Area 3 - St Catherine's

Figure 6-2: Policy summary for Coastal Management Area 3 - St Catherine's

1. Coastal Management Unit 3.1 (La Route de la Cote)

Coastal Management Unit 3.1 (La Route de la Cote) extends from Mont Orgueil Castle to Archirondel Tower; there is negligible flood risk as there are coastal defences in the form of a sloping granite wall and a near vertical granite wall at Anne Port, and a vertical wall south of Archirondel Tower. The risk of flooding via the Anne Port slipway will continue to be mitigated by the Government of Jersey's maintenance programme. However, there is a risk of coastal erosion due to the soft geology, as identified in Appendix B. The policy options considered in CMU 3.1 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-13).

The preferred policy option for this unit is Maintain the Defence Line for all three epochs up to 2120. However, as there are assets at risk of erosion, the implementation and maintenance of privately funded defences is permitted, subject to Government planning policy and regulations. This is only justified in providing protection to existing assets, and should not be used to encourage new development behind the road. The preferred policy will prevent coastal erosion from impacting the commercial properties at the coastal area in front of La Route de la Cote, to provide long term protection complimentary to the existing coastal access and travel infrastructure, helping to support community and stakeholder ambitions.

The coastline here includes Anne Port Bay Geological SSI, and forms part of the Coastal National Park. There are four listed buildings with heritage value, including Victoria Tower, a Grade I listed Anglo-Jersey military structure constructed in 1837. The management intent provides protection to these sites in the present day and into the future, and the new infrastructure introduced will be suitable to the cultural value of the coastline. Providing consistent protection to these historic assets supports the Island Plan policies SP 4 and HE 1, and the Future Jersey objective to protect the built and historic environment. The preferred policy option has the greatest potential to support plans and opportunities for economic growth by providing better protection to the commercial properties at the coastline, and could facilitate opportunities for investment.

Figure 6-3: Existing coastal defences at the coastline in front of La Route de la Cote (CMU 3.1)

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 6-4: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 3.1 (La Route de la Cote)

January 2020  AECOM 71

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

2. Coastal Management Unit 3.2 (Archirondel Tower)

Coastal Management Unit 3.2 (Archirondel Tower) comprises the coastline in front of the electricity substation next to Archirondel Tower, and includes the coastal defences north of Archirondel Tower. The unit is completely defended and there is no risk of coastal erosion, but is subject to overtopping flood risk from a 1:1 year flood event in the present day. The policy options considered in CMU 3.2 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4- 14). The preferred policy option for this unit is Adaptive Management in epoch 1, and Maintain the Defence Line for epochs 2 and 3, up to 2120. This is intended to reduce the flood risk to Archirondel electricity substation, which is valued for providing electricity to the Island, receiving electricity from the Channel Islands Electricity Grid interconnectors Normandie 1 and 2. The coastal defences implemented here will provide long-term protection to this critical infrastructure, and improve the energy security of Jersey.

Archirondel Tower is a Grade I listed Anglo-Jersey military structure, one of 23 Conway towers built between 1778 and 1801, and one of only three towers constructed with a gun battery at the foot of the tower. Any new defence infrastructure implemented will be integrated into the coastline as much as possible, to retain the cultural and heritage value of the historic environment and support community and stakeholder ambitions. The preferred policy has the greatest potential to support economic objectives; providing protection to the substation and consequently improving  energy  security  has  the  potential  to  secure  contributions,  providing  sustainability  to  the  utilities infrastructure of the Island.

The number of properties at risk from flooding at Archirondel Tower are shown for each return period event in Table 6-2, with the benefits and costs for the preferred policy option also calculated. There are only a few properties at risk of flooding, which is reflected in the Benefit Cost Ratio, however the qualitative assessment of Archirondel substation presented in Appendix D shows that the benefits of implementing coastal defences here will be protecting critical infrastructure for electricity supply across Jersey.

Table 6-2: Economic Assessment Summary - CMU 3.2 (Archirondel Tower)

January 2020  AECOM 72

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 6-5: Coastal Flood risk at CMU 3.2 (Archirondel Tower)

January 2020  AECOM 73

Figure 6-6: Coastline at Archirondel Tower (CMU 3.2)

3. Coastal Management Unit 3.3 (St Catherine's Bay)

Coastal Management Unit 3.3 (St Catherine's Bay) currently benefits from flood defences in some areas because the defences are higher than the still water levels, and there is no risk of coastal erosion. The policy options considered in CMU 3.3 are scored against the objectives in Appendix C (Table 4-15). The preferred policy option for this unit is Maintain the Defence Line for all three epochs.

The preferred policy will proactively maintain the existing defences to be complimentary to the existing tourist facilities at St Catherine's Bay, particularly the rocky coves on the coastline and St Catherine's Breakwater. This acknowledges the needs of the community and stakeholders, as well as contributing to health and wellbeing benefits driven by coastal access. Both the road infrastructure and the agricultural land behind the coastal defences benefit from flood protection, therefore the management intent will maintain the provision of natural resources on the Island and contribute towards increased food security. The risk of flooding via the RNLI slipway will continue to be mitigated by the Government of Jersey's maintenance programme.

The coastline at St Catherine's Bay forms part of the Coastal National Park, and there are 20 heritage and listed buildings located here as well as the breakwater; the preferred policy will provide benefit the heritage and landscape value of the area, maintaining the defences to provide consistent flood defence, supporting Policy SP 4 of the Island Plan in giving priority to the protection of the natural and historic environment, HE 1 to protect listed buildings and places, and NE 6 to conserve the Coastal National Park.

Figure 6-7: Coastal defences at St Catherine's Bay (CMU 3.3)

Jersey Shoreline Management Plan  Government of Jersey Project number: 60580871

Figure 6-8: Coastal Flooding and Erosion risk at CMU 3.3 (St Catherine's Bay)

January 2020  AECOM 77

Jersey Shoreline Management  Government of Jersey Plan

Project number: 60580871

4. Coastal Management Unit 3.4 (La Coupe)