@196 ->Email Stewart.rowe@scarborough.gov.uk Password: jonathan Subject: Whitby Coastal Strategy I am writing to comment on the proposal in the Whitby Coastal Strategy consultation. DO NOTHING "Do nothing" is an unsustainable option. It terminates any future viability of Whitby as a town. If the projections of a pier failure within ten years of 2002 are proved accurate, then the character of Whitby as a harbour town will disappear. The abandonment of the harbour defences means the abandonment of the concept of Whitby as a harbour town, as a town centred on the river and the sea. This will mean Whitby having to effectively turn its back on its marine character. Any such process should be an active decision to become a non-maritime town rather than something forced upon it through other processes. DO MINIMUM "Do minimum", while improving the state of the piers and harbour defences, just postpones the "Do Nothing" option. While any amount of work just postpones any failure, the "no minimum" option as outlined is just a continuation of current maintenance and repairs. With no increased investment the deterioration of the piers will accelerate and repairs will not be able to keep up. Within a few years the "do minimum" option becomes the "do nothing" option, or becomes a more expensive "do something" option. DO SOMETHING I believe that the only viable option is some form of "do something", and the earlier, the cheaper. Any investment made today will be paid back by the greater investment not needed later. The draft report costs the damage to the town and harbour infrastructure due to failure of the piers as some £166,000,000 within the next 100 years. Compare that to a guide cost of some £15,000,000 in the draft report, or £150,000 per year if considered as an annual cost. DO SOMETHING OPTIONS I feel the option that would best improve the harbour defences while also conserving the architechtural and heritage value of the existing pier structures would be an appropriate mix of options 5, 6 and 7, repairs and improvements to existing structures to conserve and improve their condition and improve their defensive performance. I agree with the arguments identified by the Sneaton Castle Options Workshop on 20th November last year, against options 1-4 and 8-10, and will not persue those options further, other than to urge that the recommendation not to persue those options should be taken. THE PIERS The west face of the West Pier should remain a vertical wall. It is a visual amenity to and part of the character of Whitby Sands. As such rock revetments to the west face would be inappropriate. The visible stone faces of neither pier should be faced in visible cladding. The visible faces - both sides of the West Pier and the west side of the East Pier should retain a similar profile and visible appearence as they currently have. There may be effective ways to provide strengthing and improved structural condition by works within the pier body itself, behind the existing stone faces. However, suitable facing, fill and reinforcement that would be invisible for the majority of time would be suitable. For the West Pier, this would probably have to be lower than the general sand level, particularly as the slipway access to the Sands is in line with the pier. On the inner sides of both piers suitable strengthening cladding could be appropriate so as to be invisible for, say, 80% of the tidal range. However, the safety issues of any structures underwater that are wider than the visible pier structure would have to be taken into account. On balance, I feel that between the two piers the facing surface should continue down below water in the line implied by the visible structure. Rock revetments could be appropiate for the east face of the East Pier, as The Scar is currently little used as amenity space and has no direct access, other than over the Spa Bridge causeway. Additionally, the general character of the east cliff toes and foreshore are broken and fallen rock. Also, the causeway replacing the Spa Bridge includes an amount of rock revetment. However, any rock revetment to the entire height of the East Pier has the side effect of making foot access (or rather, clamber access) from the East Pier directly onto the Scar. This side effect must be taken into account. A full height revetment or a partial height revetment would both be suitable, but a full height revetment should only be implemented if the side effect of providing access down to the Scar is also desired. Figure 30 and figure 31 show two options for increasing the effective pier crest level. Figure 31 proposes a wall up to 5m hight along the outer edge of the piers. I feel that this is inappropriate. A major part of the amenity of the piers is being able to see views from them. Any wall higher than about 0.5m above the finished footsurface level would remove those views. Parts of the piers already have walls, but only to a height of about half a metre, and any improved or additional walls should likewise not be much higher. Figure 30 proposes raising the finished footsurface of the whole pier to increase the crest height. I feel that this is a better option that a wall along one side, but an increase in height of the full 5m shown in the diagram would have a significant change on the character of the piers. A 5m increase in height of the East Pier is the least problametic. It would mean the downward sloping causeway from the Haggerlythe would slope down less. The view of the Scar from Tate Hill beach is already obscured by the East Pier, so there would be no loss of view. However, a 5m increase in height almost doubles the visual massing, going from about 8m in height to about 13m. A 5m increase in height for the West Pier is problematic as the West Pier is an extension of Pier Road. Pier Road is at almost the same height above OD as the West Pier finished footway. A 5m increase in height would require some form of access to the new surface. Additionally, if the pier is raised 5m it leaves Pier Road as a weak spot through which higher cresting water would be funnelled. The battery parade would also have to be raised. It may be possible to achieve the required improvements by raising the height progressively as you move away from the land. Any change in the surface height of the West Pier would require Alderman Pannett's railings being removed. If this is done, they must be retained and replaced (with any suitable repairs) on the finished surface. The major and unavoidable issue with raising the pier surface is the two Listed stone lighthouses. Simply raising the pier surface would effectively bury the lighthouses. Any raising of the piers must include very careful listed-building-appropriate, and probably quite expensive, works to raise the lighthouses to the new surface height. Any increase in pier crest height should be combined with sea-facing walls to lessen the raised height needed, but as discussed above, any walls should be no higher than about 0.5m, of a similar height and character as the existing walls. THE PIER EXTENSIONS Addressing the pier extensions is a much simpler issue, being simply a concrete subsea base supporting a timber structure. I feel that the best solution for the pier extensions would be to fill, clad and rebuild as appropriate the concrete base. However, my earlier comment about subsea structures not being out of line with the above-sea structure also applies here, and more so as this is the deep-water area. Figure 28 shows a squared block construction around the base. The existing base does have projecting "toes", which become visible at low tide The timber structure should be repaired and replaced as appropriate - it probably should be completely replaced and rebuilt from scratch. As with the current extensions, there should be two accessible levels and they should be linked from the piers. Obviously, if the finished footsurface of the piers is raised, the finished footsurface of the top level of the pier extensions should be at the same height. -- Cllr J.G.Harston Councillor for Walkley Ward, Sheffield City Council The information in this email is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect that the message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council may monitor all email passing through its networks.