8
S.D.King
protection schemes under the sole jurisdiction of MAFF. Essentially this meant that
defence and protection became combined under the term coastal works, to be
administered by Water Authorities in collaboration with Maritime Councils, but funded
at the lower sea defence rate.
This institutional change may be seen as an attempt at unified management
strategies. However, the Coast protection Act 1949 and Land Drainage Act 1976 were
still in force, and therefore sea defence and coast protection could still be judged as
separate issues. Park (1989) argues that there is no evidence that this causes difficulties,
the Whitstable incident being a rare situation. Despite this, others, such as Hooke and
Bray (1995), conclude that the overall legislative procedure has resulted in a number of
problems at the coast, and not just those of funding.
Hooke and Bray (1995) suggest that the two Acts have subdivided shoreline
management according to the boundaries of district councils, which, they say, has
resulted in a complex mix of authorities, each with responsibility for often short
stretches of a shore. Such subdivisions have taken no account of coastal processes that
may well have resulted in the coastal works of one authority affecting the coastline of
their neighbouring authority.
As Sims and Ternan (1988) propose, there has been “no mechanism for overall
concern or responsibility [at the coast]” (Sims and Ternan, 1988, p. 240) within the
coastal legislation. In other words, the distinction between defence and protection, and
the subdivision of shoreline management between local authorities has allowed coastal
structures to be built without liaison between different groups, neglecting the
importance of coastal processes.
These problems have been recognised to a certain extent. Now MAFF are
advising all Coastal Protection Authorities (CPAs) to prepare Shoreline Management
Plans (SMPs) which should aim to provide “a framework for the development of
sustainable coastal defence policies within a sediment cell or sub-cell and to set
objectives for the future management of the shoreline” (Solway Firth Partnership, 1996,
p226). MAFF are, therefore, encouraging CPAs to liase with one another more closely
and to take a greater account of coastal processes.
New Strategies for Defence
Since 1985, the responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England and Wales has
been with MAFF, who administer the legislation that enables coastal works to be
carried out. The following Acts are relevant for such work today:
Coast Protection Act 1949
Land Drainage Act 1991
(amended by Land Drainage Act 1994)
Water Resources Act 1995
MAFF contributes funding, national strategic guidance and specialist help,
backed up by what they call a comprehensive research and development programme
(MAFF, 1996). Individual flood and coastal defence works are designed, constructed
and maintained by local operating authorities. These include:
S.D.King
protection schemes under the sole jurisdiction of MAFF. Essentially this meant that
defence and protection became combined under the term coastal works, to be
administered by Water Authorities in collaboration with Maritime Councils, but funded
at the lower sea defence rate.
This institutional change may be seen as an attempt at unified management
strategies. However, the Coast protection Act 1949 and Land Drainage Act 1976 were
still in force, and therefore sea defence and coast protection could still be judged as
separate issues. Park (1989) argues that there is no evidence that this causes difficulties,
the Whitstable incident being a rare situation. Despite this, others, such as Hooke and
Bray (1995), conclude that the overall legislative procedure has resulted in a number of
problems at the coast, and not just those of funding.
Hooke and Bray (1995) suggest that the two Acts have subdivided shoreline
management according to the boundaries of district councils, which, they say, has
resulted in a complex mix of authorities, each with responsibility for often short
stretches of a shore. Such subdivisions have taken no account of coastal processes that
may well have resulted in the coastal works of one authority affecting the coastline of
their neighbouring authority.
As Sims and Ternan (1988) propose, there has been “no mechanism for overall
concern or responsibility [at the coast]” (Sims and Ternan, 1988, p. 240) within the
coastal legislation. In other words, the distinction between defence and protection, and
the subdivision of shoreline management between local authorities has allowed coastal
structures to be built without liaison between different groups, neglecting the
importance of coastal processes.
These problems have been recognised to a certain extent. Now MAFF are
advising all Coastal Protection Authorities (CPAs) to prepare Shoreline Management
Plans (SMPs) which should aim to provide “a framework for the development of
sustainable coastal defence policies within a sediment cell or sub-cell and to set
objectives for the future management of the shoreline” (Solway Firth Partnership, 1996,
p226). MAFF are, therefore, encouraging CPAs to liase with one another more closely
and to take a greater account of coastal processes.
New Strategies for Defence
Since 1985, the responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England and Wales has
been with MAFF, who administer the legislation that enables coastal works to be
carried out. The following Acts are relevant for such work today:
Coast Protection Act 1949
Land Drainage Act 1991
(amended by Land Drainage Act 1994)
Water Resources Act 1995
MAFF contributes funding, national strategic guidance and specialist help,
backed up by what they call a comprehensive research and development programme
(MAFF, 1996). Individual flood and coastal defence works are designed, constructed
and maintained by local operating authorities. These include: