The Isle of Wight Council and the Environment Agency have decided on how best to protect The Bay area over the next 50 years, choosing not to increase the height of sea defences. Late last year, the Environment Agency (EA) sought feedback from residents in Yaverland, Sandown and Shanklin on 5 proposals to help shape the future of the seafronts in The Bay area. Just 45 responses were received but of those responses, Option 5 was the most favourable – to increase the height of defences now to mitigate future sea level rises. However, it has been announced this week that Option 3 – a £22million scheme – has been chosen as the preferred way forward following in-depth investigations, assessments, financial analysis, and the public consultation. This option is ‘significantly’ cheaper than Options 4 and 5, by around 50%. Option 3 will involve construction works to refurbish the sea wall and timber/concrete groynes between 2026 and 2028. An initial design is about to be drawn up, but the current thinking is that works to the walls will be constructed using shutters with an in-situ pour of concrete 200mm against the face of the existing sea wall. This option will provide a quality finish. Temporary works such as sheet piling will be required along the section of wall and groyne being worked on to provide a safe and dry working corridor, which means there is likely to be disruption at the seaside for at least 2 Summers. As part of the refurbishment project, works will take place that strengthen the foundations of the seawall with the foresight that a decision to raise the height of the seawall may be a viable option in 50 years’ time. The schemes will take place at Sandown between Yaverland Car Park and Culver Parade, and at Shanklin between Hope Road car park and Shanklin Chine. 
300 homes and businesses are set to be protected by the coastal defence works, but modelling shows that 11 homes and 16 businesses will remain at risk of internal property flooding from a tidal flooding event with a 0.5% annual probability – 1 in 200 chance each year. But if nothing is done, this risk would increase to 138 homes and 136 businesses. Emily Webster, Project Lead for Shanklin and Yaverland Coastal Defence Schemes, Environment Agency, has said:
“The Environment Agency is pleased with the decision to refurbish the sea wall, concrete groynes and wooden groynes in Yaverland, Sandown and Shanklin. “This decision was based upon our detailed assessments of the best options available, as well as listening to the views of the local communities who said that better protection from coastal erosion and flooding is a priority. “The next stage is to create an initial design and plan for the construction work”.
Councillor Paul Fuller, Cabinet member for planning, coastal protection, and flooding, said:
“The current flood defences are deteriorating, so it’s vital we act now to better protect these coastal communities from rising sea levels and more extreme storm events in the future. “Progress on the initial design and plans on the construction will be displayed at a public exhibition in the Summer”.
Tories cutting corners again, sure they’ll save a few pounds now but it’ll cost them in the long run as flooding events will cause so much damage. Tories are far too short sighted, can’t see past their wallets.
For example, the reason the benefits is such a drain on the public finances. Tories sold of all the council houses so now benefits payments have to cover ludicrously high rents. Where as if we still have council estates you would just not pay the rent on the council house and the council will get the money direct from government, This is massively reduce the tax bill. But no, the boomers sold our future for a cheap house and now they pretend like they got their money from hard work.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, it won’t cost them anything in the long run, it’ll cost us.
So they received 45 responses and they favoured Option 5 but the EA/council decided to go for Option 3 because it is cheaper. I am surprised they even got 45 responses because it is blindingly obvious that the EA/council would ignore any feedback, as they have. Don’t bother asking us again because we know that you will always ignore us. Why even bother presenting options that are not affordable? EA and council are just a bunch of morons.
True, like anything the Government or councils ask the public, ONLY if your choice coincides with theirs will your choice be upheld.
But by ‘asking’ the public, when the two do coincide, it ‘appears’ WE had a choice and democracy has been done, and when they mess up, they can then BLAME the public, saying ‘we did what the public wanted’
All a waste of time so don’t pander to it, by not getting involved the results will be no different and WE can’t then be blamed when they mess up, as they will.
Ye like any of it going to happen..
Good to see the endemic positivity of islanders.
Why ask for opinions then discard them? Don’t bother asking in the first place… just a “show” of democracy??