Slapton Sands Beach Management Plan

BackgroundThe ‘Slapton Line’ and A379 road are suffering from lowering beach levels and storm damage. This along with recent emergency repair works has reinforced their importance to the local community.

Sea level rise predictions and increased storminess will only continue to increase the vulnerability of the Line and its associated infrastructure to damage. It is therefore vital that we consider now what feasible protective measures could be taken, before it is too late.

The Slapton Line Partnership (SLP) has appointed specialist consulting engineers CH2M to develop a detailed plan, known as a Beach Management Plan (BMP).

Who is the Slapton Line Partnership? The SLP was formed in 2001 in response to a closure of the coastal road between the Slapton turn and Strete Gate caused by storm damage and which lasted three months.

The purposes of the Slapton Line Partnership are to:

1. Promote a co-ordinated policy for managing coastal change in and around Slapton Sands;

2. Ensure that appropriate contingency plans and preparations are maintained for responding to erosion events;

Slapton Sands Beach Management PlanWhat are the objectives of the Beach Management Plan?

z To review and better understand the coastal processes which contribute to change along the coastline.

z To assess the performance of the existing coastal defences.

z To assess the local economic benefit of future management options.

z To appraise each short listed option against technical, economic, environmental and social criteria and identify the preferred management approach.

z To present a monitoring and intervention plan to sustain the A379 for the next 20 years.

z To develop and implement more sustainable longer-term solutions with consideration of the current ‘Shoreline Management Plan’.

z To consider long term changes to both funding and local policy.

z To consider the impact of any management solution on the Slapton Line which is in a National Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

3. To promote a range of adaptation activities and projects in anticipation of future change;

4. To promote public awareness and community engagement in the coastal management and adaptation process.

Please contact us with comments - email: [email protected] or tel: 07891 927 128

Location and ExtentSlapton Sands is a shingle barrier beach, located in South Devon, which separates the freshwater lagoon of Slapton Ley from Start Bay.

The barrier is located within an area of outstanding environmental, landscape and geological / geomorphological value. The Line is in a National Nature Reserve and SSSI designated for vegetated shingle, freshwater lakes and wetlands, geomorphologic features and rare plants and birds.

The South West Coastal footpath runs along the Line and the area has a number of local small businesses and settlements where tourism makes up a major source of income.

Slapton Sands Beach Management Plan

How will the Beach Management Plan be developed?

Following the public exhibition(s),

the final Beach Management Plan

document will be prepared and

finalised.

We will assess the ‘baseline’ data i.e.

what’s necessary to produce the Plan,

what information we don’t have and how we can get this. This will define the scope for the next stage.

We will update the baseline information

(including coastal processes, defences,

environment and economics), fill in the gaps

and use this to decide which beach management

options could be used.

The communications will continue and be

integral to each stage.

This stage will identify and appraise

the different management

activities that could be implemented

between Torcross and Strete Gate.

We will present the findings of the Plan to the local community via a public exhibition at a site local to Slapton Sands.

The Plan will be prepared in six stages, with stakeholder communication scheduled throughout.

Stage 6Produce Beach Management

Plan

Stage 1Desktop Review

Stage 2Technical Updates

Stage 3Stakeholder Engagement and Funding

Stage 4Options

Development and

Economics

Stage 5Community Engagement



Stage 1-2Work focused upon the collection of baseline data to enable technical docments to be produced relating to Coastal Processes, Coastal Defences, Environment and Economics.

Coastal Processes In order to better inform future engineering options it is important that we gain an up-to-date understanding of the coastal processes operating within Start Bay. This work has been undertaken by Plymouth University who have undertaken extensive research along this frontage.

Torcross

Slapton Ley

Strete

Slapton

Blackpool Sands

Hallsands

Beesands

2013/2014 storm factThe total volume of sediment transported northward in Start Bay during the extremely energetic winter of 2013/2014 (which featured 26 days of stormy wave conditions from the south) was approximately 745,000 m3, equating to an average alongshore transport rate of 28,654 m3 per day, equivalent to around 48,000 metric tonnes of gravel per day. This provides some estimate of the maximum alongshore transport rate.

N

BK2

P18

P10

P01

BS6

HS1

Stage 1Desktop Review

Stage 2Techical Updates

Profile HS1 at the south of Hallsands has had, on average, around 100 m3/m of sediment, and has had as little as 50 m3/m in the last 10 years.

Profile BS6 at the north end of Beesands has had, on average, around 150 m3/m of sediment, and has had as little as 100 m3/m in the last 10 years.

South end of Slapton Sands (profile P0 - P3). These profiles have, on average, 75 - 200 m3/m of sediment, and P0 in front of Torcross village has had as little as 50 m3/m in the last 10 years.

Middle of Slapton Sands (profiles P8 - P11). These profiles have, on average, 150 - 200 m3/m of sediment, and have had as little as 100 m3/m in the last 10 years.

Profile BK2 at Blackpool Sands and Profile P18 at North Slapton have been accreting over the last 10 years and are therefore not erosion hotspots.

Historical Beach ProfilesIndicative beach profiles have been shown to demonstrate the long term trends.


P1876543210

-1-2

150Cross-Shore distance (m)

Elev

atio

n (

m O

DN

)

100500

May-2007 Mar-2017

BK276543210

-1-2


Elev

atio

n (

m O

DN

)

100500

May-2007 Nov-2016

Sep-2007 Nov-2016

HS176543210

-1-2


Elev

atio

n (

m O

DN

)

100500

Sep-2007 Nov-2016

BS676543210

-1-2


Elev

atio

n (

m O

DN

)

100500

Sep-2007 Nov-2016

Sep-2007 Nov-2016

P0176543210

-1-2


Elev

atio

n (

m O

DN

)

100500

May-2007 Mar-2017

P1076543210

-1-2


Elev

atio

n (

m O

DN

)

100500

May-2007 Mar-2017

In Start Bay, wave conditions arrive both from a southerly direction and an easterly direction. The southerly waves originate in the Atlantic Ocean, and refract into Start Bay as they propagate up the English Channel, whereas the easterly waves originate from local storms occurring in the Channel itself.

Erosion hotspots


Stage 4Options

Development and

Economics


Stage 4-5Compile and consider all the beach management options and start to assess their appropriateness to providing a solution for Slapton Sands.

Seawall

Pros1. Protects from erosion2. Long lasting

Cons1. Prevents sediment exchange between

backshore and foreshore, can cause coastal squeeze (beach narrowing and steepening) in front

2. Visually unattractive3. Expensive

Timber groynes

Pros1. Cheaper than alternatives, such as

seawall or rock revetment2. Potential to hold a larger beach, thereby

increasing its amenity value

Cons1. Requires replacement 20-30 years2. Doesn’t completely stop erosion

(e.g. cross-shore losses)3. Requires a certain volume of beach,

so recharge may be required

Rock revetment

Pros1. Absorbs wave energy and reduces rates

of overtopping 2. Cheaper than alternatives such as a

seawall

Cons1. Requires management and replacement

quite often2. Increased health and safety risks for

beach users from rock structure and voids

Offshore breakwater

Pros1. Potential to hold a larger beach, thereby

increasing its amenity value 2. Reduces wave energy reaching the

shoreline3. Allows longshore transport to continue

Cons1. Very expensive2. Potential for significant downdrift erosion3. Significant change in landscape character

and associated visual impact

Rock groynes

Pros1. Potential to hold a larger beach, thereby

increasing its amenity value 2. Longer lasting than timber groynes

Cons1. Expensive2. Reduces ability for beach to respond

naturally to storms in an alongshore direction

3. Requires a certain volume of beach, so recharge may be required

Beach recharge

Pros1. Works with natural processes2. Increased amenity value of beach

Cons1. Often different grain size to natural beach

resulting in unnatural beach response, oversteepening or cliffing

2. Material subject to movement under storms and therefore not guaranteed to stay in place, so usually constructed in conjunction with control structures, such as groynes

3. Very expensive


Management Options

No active intervention

Reactive realignment of the road

Proactive realignment of the road

New road landward of Ley

Upgrade route along existing network landward of ley

Sheet piled wall

Seawall

Rock revetment

Groynes (timber or rock)

Beach recycling

Beach recharge

Offshore breakwater

Existing Sea Defences

5 5

4

43

3

2

21

1

Torcross seawall

Old seawall

Rock armour

Beach

Sheet piled wall



Option Description

1 Do nothing

2 Tidal barrier (enclosing a tidal lagoon to move the risk out to sea and generate energy)

3 Tdal/wave generation scheme (e.g. an array of surface or submerged wave energy convertors)

4 Offshore submerged reef (sand bags; surfing)

5 Offshore (partially of fully submerged) reef (sunken ships)

6 Inshore (partially or fully submerged) breakwater

7 Offshore breakwater (large, offshore)

8 Seawall (along the length of the barrier) (continuation of Torcross)

9 Seawall (strategically placed at specific locations)

10 Seawall (maintain and upgrade: a. existing seawall at Torcross and b. existing defences adjacent to Torcross Seawall)

11 Demountable defences (behind existing seawall)

12 Sheet pile wall (along the length of the barrier)

13 Sheet pile wall (Strategically placed at specific locations)

14 Rock revetment (along the length of the barrier)

15 Rock revetment (strategically placed at specific locations)

16 Timber groynes (along length of beach between Torcross and Strete)

17 Timber groynes (strategically placed at specific locations)

18 Rock groynes (along the length of the barrier)

19 Rock groynes (strategically placed at specific locations)

20 Terminal groyne at Pilchard Cove (to prevent northerly transport of material north towards Blackpool Sands)

Option Description

21 Beach recycling (move material along the beach from area of accretion in the north to area of erosion in the south)

22Beach recycling (Strategic movement of material along the coast, in support of beach retaining structures such as wooden groynes)

23 Beach recycling (move material from the road / back of the barrier back to front

24 Recycling and railway

25 Beach nourishment/recharge

26Build-up (recharge) sherries bank with similar material/plastic (to reduce the wave energy approaching the shoreline)

27 Reactive realignment of the road, with all planning requirements in place (emergency works)

28 Pro-active realignment of the road at locations identified as ‘erosion hotspots’ (similar to Option 29)

29 Realignment of A379 road, either side of the previous realignment

30 Relocate car parks landward

31 Gravel road (cease maintenance of the tarmac road, but allow the top of the barrier to be used as a carriageway)

32 Land/road bridge connectiong Torcross with Strete

33 upgrade inland routes

34 New road (inland)

35 Road toll (to fund management of the road)

36 Car ferry (allowing the exisiting defences and road to fail)

37 Develop adaptation plan with the adaptation phases

38 Define Slapton as a CCMA and devise adaption plan

Long List Development38 long list options were identified using information collected from baseline reports, stakeholder workshops and public consultation feedback.

Funding There are up to 48 residential properties at risk of coastal flooding during the 20 year appraisal period. Taking these into account, the disruption in traffic through potential road closures and the impact on tourism income to the area indicates that approx. £1.78 million of funding could be requested from the Environment Agency to fund coastal risk management activities over the next 20 years.

Stage 4Options

Development and

Economics




No Description Costs Rationale for Discounting from Long-List

1 Do Nothing n/aDiscounted on the basis that the option does not directly reduce flooding or erosion.

2

Tidal barrier (enclosing a tidal lagoon to move the risk out to sea and generate energy)

£1.3 billion

A tidal barrier could help to reduce the wave energy reaching the shoreline, however, a tidal barrier is not viable on the basis of tidal climate, costs and environmental impacts

3

Tidal/wave energy generation scheme (e.g. an array of surface or submerged wave energy convertors)

£1.3 billion

A tidal/wave generation scheme could help to reduce the wave energy reaching the shoreline, however it is not viable on the basis of the available technologies, tidal climate, costs and environmental impacts

4Offshore submerged reef (sand bags; surfing)

£3 million +

A submerged offshore reef is unlikely to provide sufficient protection to the coastline over the next 20 years. The success of the reef is very dependent on the local tidal and wave conditions. The option is costly with no proven success record in the UK and is considered a very high risk option.

5Offshore (partially or fully submerged) reef (sunken ships)

Sunken ships are unlikely to provide sufficient protection against erosion and flood risk. The option is costly with no proven success record in the UK and is considered a very high risk option.

6

Inshore (partially submerged) breakwater

£5.3 million to

£13 million +

Although this option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years, it is a very expensive option. Sediment transport process down drift could be effected thereby increasing the risk to erosion and flooding there.

7 Offshore breakwater (large, offshore)

£8.1 million to

£22 million +

Although this option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years, it is an even more expensive option that the partially submerged breakwaters. Sediment transport process down drift could be effected thereby increasing the risk to erosion and flooding there. There would also be substantial changes to the landscape / character of the area.

8

Seawall (along the length of the barrier) (continuation of Torcross)

£22 million

Although this option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years, it is an expensive option and does not work well with cross shore processes. The option of a seawall is contrary to the SMP2 policy of Managed Realignment.

9Seawall (strategically placed at specific locations)

£10 million

Although this option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years, there is potential for cutback and outflanking between each section of seawall, which would leave isolated hard points. Although cheaper than the full length seawall, the option remains expensive. The alignment to the SMP2 Managed Realignment Policy is also questioned as the shoreline will still be held in places.

No Description Costs Rationale for Discounting from Long-List

11 Demountable defences (behind existing seawall)

In isolation, demountable defences do not provide sufficient protection against erosion and flooding. They may be used in conjunction with alternative approaches to divert the flow of overtopped water, but even then, the funds available would be better spent on an all-encompassing solution.

12Sheet pile wall (along the length of the barrier)

£11 million

This option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years. There are a number of issues relating to corrosion of the piles, maintenance and replacement of the sheet piles, which outweigh the pros of this option. Therefore, unlike the seawall, this option will not be carried forward via a Change Scenario. This option does not work well with cross-shore processes and there are environmental impacts. The option of a sheet pile wall is contrary to the SMP2 policy of Managed Realignment.

13Sheet pile wall (strategically placed at specific locations)

£5 million

Although this option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years, there is potential for cutback and outflanking between each section of sheet pile wall, which would leave isolated hard points. Although cheaper than the full length sheet pile wall, the option remains expensive. The option does not work well with cross-shore processes and there are environmental impacts. The alignment to the SMP2 Managed Realignment Policy is also questioned as the shoreline will still be held in places.

14Rock revetment (along the length of the barrier)

£31 million +

Although this option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years, it is expensive to build and maintain. A rock revetment is less reflective than a seawall or sheet pile wall and would therefore have less impact on cross shore processes. Rock can be readily moved in response to change, which makes it more flexible. The option of a rock revetment is contrary to the SMP2 policy of Managed Realignment, so if reconsidered under different change scenario, necessary action and agreement would be required to amend the SMP2 policy.

23

Beach recycling (move material from the road / back of the barrier back to the front)

£6.2 million to

£14.5 million

Not considered to be an option to address flooding and erosion risk in its entirety, rather an ongoing option that will be included as a recommendation for ongoing works. Therefore, the option has not be taken through the short-list appraisal.

24 Recycling and railwayRecycling is considered elsewhere. Costs of the construction of a railway will not be funded via FDGiA and will itself be vulnerable.

26

Build-up (recharge) sherries bank with similar material/plastic (to reduce the wave energy approaching the shoreline)

This option is discounted on environmental grounds, in that it will not be acceptable, and that it will not provide sufficient protection to the north.

Long List AssessmentThe preferred option was determined by assessing the viability of each long list option against the following criteria:

z Technical: the impact that solutions could have on the coastal processes and shoreline interaction and the legacy left for future generations.

z Environmental: the impact that solutions could have on the landscape character and amenity of the area in addition to the environmental designations (AONB, SSSI).

z Economics: the estimated whole lifecycle cost compared against the estimated £1.79 million FDGiA funding.

Options discounted from the Long ListA number of long list options were discounted as they did not directly reduce flooding and coastal erosion risk or were considered to raise significant concerns.

Stage 4Options

Development and

Economics




Theme No Option Description Costs Rationale for Taking Forward to Short-List

Shoreline Structure

10

Seawall (maintain and upgrade: a. existing seawall at Torcross and b. existing defences adjacent to Torcross Seawall)

a. £376k (EA cost) b. £250k sheet

piling, £500k rock revetment repair

This option provides sufficient protection against erosion and flooding at the western end of the BMP frontage. Since the wall is already in place and is compliant with the current SMP2 policy, it will need to be considered alongside all other options going forward.

15 Rock revetment (strategically placed at specific locations)

£6.2 million to £14.5 million

This option reduces overtopping and risk of cut-back, but there is a risk of potential for cutback and outflanking between each section of rock revetment, which would leave isolated hard-points. Costs are reduced when considered against a full-length revetment. The alignment to the SMP2 Managed Realignment Policy is questioned.

Beach Control Structure

16 Timber groynes (along length of beach between Torcross and Strete)

£16 millionThis option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years. The timber groynes would act to reduce the alongshore movement of material, which is a key contributor to the erosion of this coastline.

17 Timber groynes (strategically placed at specific locations)

£3 million to £6.8 million

This option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years. The timber groynes would act to reduce the alongshore movement of material, which is a key contributor to the erosion of this coastline. There is a risk of cutback and outflanking around the strategically placed structures, which would require further construction and costs to rectify - the placement and number of groynes would need to be considered very carefully, and may even need to be considered alongside a beach recycling option.

18 Rock groynes (along the length of the barrier)

£12.6 millionThis option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years. The rock groynes would act to reduce the alongshore movement of material, which is a key contributor to the erosion of this coastline.

19 Rock groynes (strategically placed at specific locations)

£2.4 million to £6.8 million

This option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years. The rock groynes would act to reduce the alongshore movement of material, which is a key contributor to the erosion of this coastline. There is a risk of cutback and outflanking around the strategically placed structures, which would require further construction and costs to rectify - the placement and number of groynes would need to be considered very carefully, and may even need to be considered alongside a beach recycling option.

20Terminal groyne at Pilchard Cove (to prevent northerly transport of material north towards Blackpool Sands)

£2.2 millionA groyne at this location would prevent the loss of material from the Slapton Sands frontage, however, alone it doesn’t allow for the movement back of material to the south. This option will only be successful if considered in conjunction with beach recycling.

Recycling / Recharge

21

Beach recycling (move material along the beach from area of accretion in the north to area of erosion in the south)

£1.3 million

Beach recycling is an agreeable option when considering costs, impacts on coastal processes and the environment. It is relatively low cost, however, movement is strongly linked to weather patterns and the ability for the material to move to the right place at the right time. This option would work better with beach control structures to help reduce the uncertainty.

22

Beach recycling (strategic movement of material along the coast, in support of beach retaining structures such as wooden groynes)

£1.3 million

This option would provide sufficient protection for 20 years. Beach recycling is an agreeable option when considering costs, impacts on coastal processes and the environment. It is relatively low cost, however, movement is strongly linked to weather patterns and the ability for the material to move to the right place at the right time. The use of a control structure would help to retain the material where paced, but does come with its own pros and cons.

25 Beach nourishment/recharge £8.9 millionThis option could provide sufficient protection for 20 years. The success of this option will ultimately depend on the ability to source appropriate material and achieve associated licensing approval.

Road Re-alignment

27Reactive realignment of the road, with all planning requirements in place (emergency works)

£0.9 million

This option could help to maintain the road link over the next 20 years, however, it will be focused on an isolated area of the coastline and does not therefore protect the length of Slapton Sands from flooding and erosion risks. It should be considered alongside other beach management options that aim to reduce the risk of flooding and erosion, and subsequently road loss.

28Pro-active realignment of the road at locations identified as ‘erosion hotspots’

£1.4 million

This option could help to maintain the road link over the next 20 years, however, it would only be successful if that particular section of coastline is at risk. Similar to reactive realignment, it will be focused on an isolated area of the coastline and does not therefore protect the length of Slapton Sands from flooding and erosion risks. It should be considered alongside other beach management options that aim to reduce the risk of flooding and erosion, and subsequently road loss.

29 Realignment of the A379 road, either side of the previous realignment

£1.6 million

This option could help to maintain the road link over the next 20 years, however, it would only be successful if that particular section of coastline is at risk. Similar to reactive realignment, it will be focused on an isolated area of the coastline and does not therefore protect the length of Slapton Sands from flooding and erosion risks. It should be considered alongside other beach management options that aim to reduce the risk of flooding and erosion, and subsequently road loss.

Options that do not directly reduce flooding or erosion but taken forward to be considered in recommendations

30 Relocate car parks landward

31 Gravel road (cease maintenance of the tarmac road, but allow the top of the barrier to be used as a carriageway)

33 Upgrade inland routes

35 Road toll (to fund management of the road)

36 Car ferry (allowing the existing defences and road to fail)

37 Develop adaptation plan with adaptation phases

38 Define Slapton Line as a Coastal Change Management Area (CCMA)

Options taken forward to the Short ListThe following options were taken forward to the Short list.

Stage 4Options

Development and

Economics


A number of ‘adaptive solution’ options were set aside to be considered as part of the wider management approach or as a direct recommendation in the BMP.



4 1

23

3

Beach Recycling

Beach Recycling

Seawall Improvements

Emergency Reactive

Realignment

Emergency Reactive

Realignment

Adaptation Plan

Rock Revetment

Repairs

Stage 4Options

Development and

Economics


Proposed SolutionThe overall strategy recognises that reactive work should be done, but only to maintain the existing defences and road as required over the next 20 years. Further options may exist but their implementation is wholly dependent on the availability of additional third party funding.

The preferred management option includes:

Seawall Improvements; Maintain and where possible improve the existing seawall and the adjacent defences.

Rock Revetment Repairs; recovery and re-profiling of the existing rock armour, in conjunction with seawall improvement, to increase protection against erosion and overtopping.

Beach Recycling; could still be implemented to bolster areas where beach levels are low. Option would require further modelling work to increase certainty and be considered in conjunction with beach control structures.

Emergency Reactive Realignment; undertaking of emergency works to the A379 as and when they are needed.

Adaptation Plan

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Next StepsThe draft Beach Management Plan now needs to include any relevant feedback and be formally agreed and signed off by the

Slapton Line Partnership. This will then allow the business case for funding to be developed and submitted to the Environment Agency for approval. In light of Storm Emma, which caused significant damage to the A379 and a

number of other assets, the BMP will need to be updated. This will continue to ensure that we have the strongest business case for moving forward.

3 41 2

Northern Realignment – this revises the proposal approved in 2007 by extending it northwards and, very slightly, to the west.

Southern Realignment – this matches the proposal granted planning permission in 2007.

Slapton Ley

Path (um)

Higher Ley

Shingle

Shingle

Slapton Sands

Path (um)

Mean Low Water

Mean High Water

7.0m 6.4m

Tennis Court

Track

11

8

The Gara

GaraThe

The Gara

Collects

Path (um)

Path (um)Path (um)

Spreads

WOOD LANE

HILL

CHANTRY

FarmM

iddlegrounds

Home Farm

Higher Ley

Hillcrest

Track

Windfall

29.9m

Shingle

Track

Track

Rosehill

Hartmoor

Homeleigh

7

2

CHANTRY HILL

WOOD LANE

Hall

Field Study Centre

FarmM

iddlegrounds

Met Sta

Lower Ley

Slapton Ley

LeyHigher

Caravan Site

El Sub Sta

Ley CottageO

akleigh

Richmore

Slapton

Path (um)

Pond

Pond

Pond

South Grounds

SANDS ROAD

6.1m

26.5m

BM 28.98m

31.1m

34.4m

27.7m

Spring

Spring

Works

Sewage

Path (um)

Collects

Track

18.3m

Slapton Bridge

11.3m7.31mBM

4.9m

5.8m

5.8m

PlantationSouthgrounds

(dis)Q

uarry

Spring

Path (um)

Path (um)

Path (um)

ParkCar

Slapton SandsShingle

Mean High Water

Mean Low Water

PC

6.1m

ParkCar

Swim.P (open)

Mean Low Water

Mean High Water

STRETE GATE

HouseThe M

anor

34.4m

5.8m

PointBroadstone

Slapton Wood

Path (um)

Slapton LeyHigher Ley

Path (um)

5.5m

Path (um)

Shingle

Shingle Slapton Sands

Path (um)

9.1m

MS

BM 16.19m

19.2m

The Gara

LB

BM 31.50m

26.5m

BM 45.29m

Track

JOB DRAWING TITLE

A3

Matford OfficesCounty HallTopsham RoadExeterEX2 4QD

Tel. 0845 155 1004Fax 01392 382342

Engineering Design Group

[email protected]

GNW

IA

RD

T UA

O

AD

C

\\dat

a.de

von.

gov.

uk\d

ocs\

Exet

er, C

ount

y H

all\E

ECPr

ojec

t\EAT

S\PP

lan\

FR\1

8237

\Dra

win

gs\H

ighw

ays\

Wor

king

Dra

win

gs\D

CC

P182

37-E

DG

-EAC

-A37

9-D

R-K

-003

.dw

g - 1

2/04

/201

8 07

:48:

27 -

Site

Pla

n fo

r PD

F - D

arre

n.D

avey

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with thepermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty'sStationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringesCrown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.Devon County Council. 100019783. 2006

Do not scale from this drawing in either hard or electronicformat. No responsibility is accepted where this drawing isused in circumstances other than that for which it wasoriginally prepared and issued.

Rev Date RevisionsDrawn Chk

drawing number

scale(s)

Revision

size

Roads A3 FRAME bottom box - Version 2.0

Slapton Ley

Higher Ley

Southern Realignment Northern Realignment

To Slapton

To StreteTo TorcrossA379

Scale 1 : 5000

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 250

11-04

-2018

A379 SLAPTON LINE

A379CARRIAGEWAY REALIGNMENT

SITE PLANINCLUDING PROPOSED EXTENSION

DCCP18237/EDG/EAC/A379/DR/K/ 0031:5000

Proposed Reinstatement of the A379 at Slapton Line


Storm Emma – Road DamageThe combination of easterly gales, large waves, high tides and surge conditions during Storm Emma in early March 2018 caused significant damage to the A379 at Slapton Line. Approximately 400 metres of the road to the north of the Slapton Junction was damaged, requiring its closure.

Proposed Reinstatement of the RoadThe release of Government funding enabled Devon County Council to confirm its planned reinstatement of the A379. Originally, it was hoped to base this on a scheme granted planning permission in 2007. However, the extent of the damage has required revised approach and submission of a new planning application.

Two sections of the A379 will be realigned to the north and south of an earlier reinstatement, undertaken in response to storm damage in 2001.

Future of the RoadThe proposed scheme aims to extend the current lifespan of the A379 along Slapton Line. However, ongoing natural evolution of the shingle bar and future severe storms will make its longevity very uncertain.

Steps & Anticipated TimingSite investigations, & surveys and initial agreement with Slapton Line Partnership

March to May 2018

Scheme design, & costing, & contract preparation

April / May 2018

Preparation, & submission of planning application and associated environmental impact assessment

May / Early June 2018

Select scheme contractor June 2018

Undertake realignment work (approx. 9 weeks)

Summer 2018

Finalise restoration of original damaged carriageway

Early Autumn 2018

Re-open A379Late Autumn 2018

Timings may be affected by the progress of the planning application.

A379 SLAPTON LINE


NORTHERN SECTION CONSENTEDREALIGNMENT + PROPOSED EXTENSION

KEY

NEWLY PROPOSEDCARRIAGEWAY

VERGE

CUTTING (1:2 BATTER)

FILL (1:2 BATTER)

JOB DRAWING TITLE


Tel. 0845 155 1004Fax 01392 382342


[email protected]

GNW

IA

RD

T UA

O

AD

C

\\dat

a.de

von.

gov.

uk\d

ocs\

Exet

er, C

ount

y H

all\E

ECPr

ojec

t\EAT

S\PP

lan\

FR\1

8237

\Dra

win

gs\H

ighw

ays\

Wor

king

Dra

win

gs\D

CC

P182

37-E

DG

-EAC

-A37

9-D

R-K

-001

.dw

g - 1

2/04

/201

8 07

:46:

43 -

Nor

ther

n Se

ctio

n - D

arre

n.D

avey

A3




drawing number

scale(s)

Revision

11-04

-2018

size

Roads A3 FRAME portrait - Version 2.0

To S

trete

N.T.S.

CURRENTLY CONSENTEDREALIGNMENT

Locationof Site

To T

orpo

int

0 20 30 40 50 10010

DCCP18237/EDG/EAC/A379/DR/K/ 001

LOCATION PLAN

N.T.S.


Locationof Site

0 20 30 40 50 10010

002A379 SLAPTON LINE


SOUTHERN SECTION CONSENTEDREALIGNMENT

KEY

NEWLY PROPOSEDCARRIAGEWAY

VERGE

CUTTING (1:2 BATTER)

FILL (1:2 BATTER)

JOB DRAWING TITLE


Tel. 0845 155 1004Fax 01392 382342


[email protected]

GNW

IA

RD

T UA

O

AD

C

\\dat

a.de

von.

gov.

uk\d

ocs\

Exet

er, C

ount

y H

all\E

ECPr

ojec

t\EAT

S\PP

lan\

FR\1

8237

\Dra

win

gs\H

ighw

ays\

Wor

king

Dra

win

gs\D

CC

P182

37-E

DG

-EAC

-A37

9-D

R-K

-002

.dw

g - 1

2/04

/201

8 07

:45:

07 -

Sout

hern

Sec

tion

- Dar

ren.

Dav

ey

A3




drawing number

scale(s)

Revision

11-04

-2018

size

Roads A3 FRAME portrait - Version 2.0

To S

trete


To T

orpo

int

DCCP18237/EDG/EAC/A379/DR/K/

Documents

Slapton Sands Beach Management Plan