FAQs

A flood and coastal risk management strategy is strategic document that provides high level options to manage flood and erosion risk which are sustainable in the long term. 

While the Environment Agency is the principal flood risk management authority for the Strategy. New Forest District Council, Hampshire County Council and Natural England are also partners on the Strategy with consultants JBA Consulting providing expert advice. 

A Stakeholder Advisory Group was established in 2020, consisting of local stakeholders who are consulted on various aspects of the Strategy and provide feedback along with wider feedback received from the general public via public exhibitions and the Strategy website.

Adaptation pathways are a method of planning which ensures the decisions taken today keep our options open in the future. This means flexibility can be incorporated as more is learnt about climate change and its impacts in the area. It also allows better planning for investment in the future.  

Managed Realignment involves building new defences further inland from the line of existing defences to make space for sea level rise and allow habitats to adapt and roll back.  

Hold the Line involves keeping the existing alignment of defences.  These could be strengthened or raised overtime in-keeping with sea levels.

The draft proposal for Hurst Spit does not propose to actively breach the Spit. 

The current draft pathway proposes to continue management of the Spit for the next 10 to 20 years (Hold the Form – Maintain) followed by a gradual reduction in the level of intervention.

Before this can take place supporting projects are suggested, including; 

• rerouting the opening of the Danes Stream
• provision of access to Hurst Castle

The spit will then be allowed to rollback in a controlled process (Rollback - Reactive Management), with the opportunity to continue to move beach material around to help the transition. Monitoring and detailed assessments of the impacts of Rollback will be conducted throughout

Eventually when the spit has established a more stable form, management would be removed in the final step on the pathway (Rollback - Minimal Intervention).

To fully understand the impacts of reduce management to Hurst Spit, further modelling work is currently being undertaken. A rolled back spit is likely to be wider and lower but still offer a structure to reduce the wave energy in the lee of the barrier.   Any potential increases in flood risk would be mitigated through increasing height of flood defences.

Further work includes but is not limited to:

• Understanding the combined impacts of the proposed Draft Pathways on the wider area
• Model how variations in Hurst Spit impact wave heights directly behind but also further afield
• Finalising environmental assessments to confirm impacts on habitats and species
• A formal consultation on the Preferred Pathways in 2026.

This is an incredibly complex coastline with many things that need to be considered. There is a set process we need to follow to identify a solution that best balances flood risk, the environment, heritage and recreation while ensuring that we are using tax payers money appropriately. 

The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a formal process (and legal requirement) that evaluates the environmental impact of a plan or program. In this case the Strategy. It's a systematic way to consider environmental and sustainability issues at every stage of development, implementation, and review. The SEA is a key part of the strategy approval process and is subject to stakeholder and statutory consultation.  The strategy requires approval from both the Environment Agency and DEFRA, with consultations from various stakeholders to capture various viewpoints.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations’) provide for the designation of sites in England that are important for protecting certain species and habitats. These sites are known as ‘European sites’ or ‘Habitats sites’ and form part of a network of protected sites across the UK known as the ‘National Site Network’. 

‘European site’ refers to protected sites across the United Kingdom, 

These sites include:  

• Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) 
• Candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC) 
• Special Protection Areas (SPA) 

Government policy also requires other protected sites to be treated as if they are designated European sites: 

• proposed SACs 
• potential SPAs 
• Ramsar sites - wetlands of international importance (both listed and proposed) 
• areas identified or required to compensate for damage to a European site

The Habitats Regulations establish several stages of assessment to determine if a plan or project may affect the protected features of a European site before a Competent Authority decides whether to undertake, permit or authorise it.  

The relevant Secretary of State is the Competent Authority for the purposes of the Habitat Regulations. The term ‘HRA’ is used to describe the steps in the assessment process, which are screening for likely significant effects, appropriate assessment and applying derogations where required. 

If a proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either from the proposed development alone or in combination with other plans or projects, an appropriate assessment is required (regulation 63).  

Where an appropriate assessment has been carried out and results in a negative assessment (where adverse effects cannot be ruled out), consent can only be granted if the following tests known as ‘derogations’ (regulations 64 and 68) are met:  

• there are no alternative solutions 
• there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) 
• compensatory measures have been secured

Compensatory habitat will be required to offset any damage caused to designated sites i.e., loss of habitat because of replacing or moving flood defences. A guiding principle is that compensation is secured as close to the affected site as possible and needs to fully offset the damage that has been caused. 

The Environment Agency Habitat Compensation and Restoration Programme (HCRP) was set up to provide a strategic mechanism for providing habitat compensation linked to flood and coastal risk management activities.

An example of a successful HCRP project is Medmerry (Medmerry coastal flood defence scheme - GOV.UK). To deliver the Strategy land may need to be secured (purchased, leased, partnership agreement etc) for the habitat compensation requirements to be met.  

The development of the Strategy itself is fully funded through central government funding. However, the funding of the future projects that the strategy recommends, is not guaranteed. A key challenge of the future implementation of the Strategy, will be securing the necessary investment. There are different funding streams dependent on what the nature of the works are.  Some funding can be applied for from central government, however there is likely to be the need for investment from other sources.   This method of funding is called ‘Partnership Funding’.

The way that the government funds flood and coastal erosion risk management projects in England is called ‘partnership funding’.  It is a policy that allows more schemes to go ahead, as instead of meeting the full cost of just a limited number of projects, the limited funds are spread amongst more projects.  The funding that a project is eligible for is directly related to the number of households protected, the damage being prevented, plus the other benefits it would deliver.

The maximum amount of funding for a project will be based on multiplying each of the aspects above by a set of payment rates, which are fixed amounts of national funding per unit of outcome or benefit achieved. 

A tool called a ‘partnership funding calculator’ is used to calculate how much government funding (Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant in Aid – FCERM GiA) a project is eligible to receive. The funding gap between the amount of government grant available, and the total cost of the project, needs to be funded through contributions from other sources.

An introductory guide from 2011 when the policy was commenced can be found online using the link below. Please note, that there have been several updates since 2011, but the general principles remain. Flood and coastal resilience introductory guidance 

There is a risk that projects will be delayed until such time that sufficient funding can be found, or that projects will not be delivered. Other less beneficial solutions may need to be considered, or there may be a need to revert to a fallback position resulting in wider impacts to the environment and community if sufficient funding cannot be secured.

In March 2023, New Forest District Council (NFDC) received £12,800 central government funding (FCERM Grant in Aid) via the Environment Agency towards maintenance works of Hurst Spit. This £12,800 was approximately 15% of the total costs needed for these works. Therefore, funding was required from other sources to meet the overall cost, which varies from year to year depending on the maintenance requirements.  This additional funding was provided by New Forest District Council, Hampshire County Council and English Heritage.

 The Grant in Aid funding was to cover a 3-year period which ends March 2026. After this period, NFDC can submit another business case to the Environment Agency for further FCERM GiA funding. However, this is not always guaranteed as it must be considered and prioritised against other projects across the country and one of the key drivers in securing the funding is the number of properties at risk in present day that would benefit from the works in terms of a flood risk reduction.  In this area, this is a limiting factor. Note, FCERM GiA is only be awarded once the applicant can demonstrate that they have secured the required partnership funding (contributions) to support the works. (see FAQ on partnership funding).

Whilst NFDC has no statutory duty or obligation to undertake maintenance works, as Coast Protection Authority the council is exploring options to secure appropriate funding to enable maintenance works to take place in the Autumn of 2025. It should, however, be noted that as well as securing suitable funding there will also be a requirement to obtain necessary permissions from landowners and assent from Natural England (due to the environmental designations present), for any works to progress.

One of the Environment Agency’s roles is to reduce the risk of flooding where possible to communities at risk. A flood defence scheme is a project to carry out improvement work to an area to reduce the risk of flooding to life, property and infrastructure.

We cannot guarantee we will better protect all of your properties from flooding. We will strive to reduce the flood risk to as many properties as possible, however this will be dependent on various other factors including the benefits and costs associated with the options, available funding for the work and legal requirements. We will not increase the risk of flooding to properties through our work.   

The probability or likelihood of flooding is described as the chance that a location will flood in any one year.  The likelihood is expressed as a percentage i.e. 1%, or as a chance expressed for example as 1 in 100 chance in any given year. It is important to remember that the risk of a flood occurring is there at all times - this year, next year and future years.

There are now multiple definitions of sustainability.  Our definition is based on the 3 pillars of sustainable development which comes from the Brundtland Report (1987) where we are striving for a solution that balances social, environmental and economic factors.

Some of the options, such as ‘Managed Realignment’, included controlled flooding of some areas. This will ensure a more naturally functioning and flood resilient system long term, provide enhanced flood protection, and potentially create areas of valuable habitat that will be lost elsewhere.  In realigning some flood defences, it will be important to assess the impact to property and infrastructure and mitigate where an increase may be realised. 

Yes we are aware of 'beneficial use of dredgings' (BUDs) and in particular the work that the Solent Forum is undertaking to investigate the use of BUDs in the area. 

During the Long List appraisal, 'saltmarsh restoration' (beneficial reuse of dredgings) was included as an option for consideration.   This Long List was reviewed against Critical Success Factors, which captures many different considerations including performance in reducing flood risk, impact on environment etc. 

The appraisal concluded (in respect to flood risk management specifically) that:

• Saltmarsh restoration does not reduce the risk of still water level flooding (where the combination of astronomic tide and atmospheric surge combine to create a very large water level, similar to recent Storms Kathleen and Pierrick).  Still water level flooding is the dominant mechanism of flood risk at this location by 2040.
• Saltmarsh restoration will reduce the rates of deterioration of assets but will not address long term deterioration and as such assets will fail at some point during the appraisal period regardless of the condition of the saltmarshes
• Saltmarsh restoration will require more and more significant management in the future in light of significant rates of sea level rise predicted over the latter part of the appraisal period
• On this basis, saltmarsh restoration was rejected from the long list as an option when considered in isolation.

Essentially when considered on its own, saltmarsh restoration will not address the magnitude of change and issues facing this stretch of coastline.

However, we have continued to keep saltmarsh restoration as a potential complimentary option on the basis of the significant benefits this could incorporate.

The Strategy have seen this as an opportunity to improve / maximise some of the benefits the more traditional flood risk management offers.

Noting that the Strategy is high level, thinking ahead to the projects that fall out of the Strategy there is still opportunity to explore saltmarsh restoration for:

• a) Opportunities to maximise benefits, funding and performance of harder defences
• b) Mitigations for some of the negative impacts to existing habitats associated with delivery of the harder defences

Therefore, the Strategy will not be considering saltmarsh restoration as a stand alone option but will continue to consider it as a complimentary option whilst learning from other local projects taking place to trial some of the methodologies.

Our data has been generated through computer modelling, using current and historic records of water records. We apply an allowance for climate change based on UK climate change projections (UKCP) generated by the Met Office and UKCP18 projections of relative mean sea level rise around the whole UK coast provided by the UK Coastal Flood Forecasting partnership. There are different allowances for different epochs or periods of time over the coming century. 

We use these projections to understand future flood risk and make provision for this risk when developing our options. This includes deciding when solutions are needed, some measures to manage flood risk are not necessary now but may be in the future.  This is called an adaptive approach.