Agenda item

This matter is the responsibility of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services, Cllr Sarah Wakefield.

This report follows on from the previously approved request that Somerset West and Taunton Council use its status as the Coastal Protection Authority to deliver a scheme on behalf of Somerset County Council relating to undertaking works to protect the B3191 at Blue Anchor.

Councillor Wakefield introduced the item and The Assistant Director for Climate Change and Assets presented the report.

Somerset West and Taunton Council, the Coastal Protection Authority, had received a proposal from Somerset County Council, the Highway Authority, with a view to undertaking works to protect the B3191 at Blue Anchor. If the scheme of work was accepted this council would deliver any agreed coastal protection scheme for the benefit of that community.  

This proposal followed on from the previously approved request that Somerset West and Taunton Council used its status as the Coastal Protection Authority to deliver a scheme on behalf of Somerset County Council.  This proposal offered the funding necessary to deliver the scheme and a commuted sum so that Somerset West and Taunton Council could take all future ownership, inspection, and maintenance responsibilities for any newly created asset. 

There was no immediate financial liability for Somerset West and Taunton Council.

This report was not a detailed review of the scheme design, this would be finalised with the designers and principle contractor as the project evolved over time. Consultation on any proposed scheme would take place with the appropriate bodies, parish councils, and impacted residents. 

During the discussion the following points and comments were raised.

·         It was clarified that the Council had the power but not the duty for the Coastal defence scheme.

·         The road was considered an important part of the network in the area and the continued protection of this alongside solutions were supported.

·         Consideration was given for diversion options and compulsory purchase of land. This had been dismissed previously on the basis of cost.

·         Phase 1 of the emergency repairs had been completed. The project was awaiting further materials to be delivered via the sea. A permanent solution was expected by the end of next year.

·         The continuing liability for Somerset West and Taunton was questioned following the works.

·         The temporary works were estimated at £385k which were temporary concrete reinforcement funded from the environment agency, the £4million funding was estimated for a more permanent solution to protect the road. If the proposals were accepted SWT were responsible for the asset, SWT would not accept liability for the road going forward.

·         Regulatory requirements that required planning consent and licence from the maritime management organisation. It was considered if this was likely delay costs. There remained an acceptable timescale for the project.

·         Future issues further down the line when the viability of the road comes into question were considered there remained no liability. Longer term there remained the risk of coastal erosion in the area.

·         Protection of the road was the responsibility of Somerset County Council.

·         The committee broadly supported the protection of land and residents in the area but concerns were expressed in relation to taking on additional liabilities.

·         The funding set out in the report was questioned. The commuted sum and paying for maintenance and not taking on extra liabilities were the preferred solution.

·         The committee encouraged officers to undertake an inspection and not undertake any additional costs of future repair on the advice of the inspections.

·         It was the Councils responsibility to residents in the area to support them and businesses in the area, the road was a vital link to the community.

·         Support for the proposal was questioned from the committee, it was considered the proposals delivered the County’s cheapest option but not sure if it was a long term solution, liability for the road and the agricultural land was at risk.

·         The cliff had already eroded to the 2050 position set out in the report, officers estimated that erosion moving faster than expected.

·         It had been determined that the greater emphasis and priority on the impact from Watchet. There were continued ongoing responsibilities to manage the project properly.

·         Future liability of the area was considered a risk and the committee expressed concerns. The scheme protected more than the road in the area and. Liability to maintain the road would remain the County Councils.

Recommendations

The committee wished to support moves to protect the coastline and coastal communities, there were significant concerns expressed in relation to the potential for responsibility and long term liability and recommend Executive and Full Council fully understand and request details on the long term liabilities going forward to ensure a full understanding of the longevity of the scheme and mitigate long term liability and risk.