9. DirApp Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans
North Ayrshire Council · 30 September 2025
Back to Cabinet — 30 September 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 30 September 2025 Cabinet Title: Draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans Purpose: To update Cabinet on the completion of the draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans for ‘Sandylands Promenade & Stevenston Beach’ and for ‘Irvine Harbour & Irvine Beach’ and to seek approval for publication of the plans as the Council’s preferred policy for coastal change adaptation at the two study areas. Recommendation: That Cabinet:- a) notes the work carried out, b) approves the content of the draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plan for ‘Sandylands Promenade & Stevenston Beach’ and for ‘Irvine Harbour and Irvine Beach’ and the accompanying summary reports, c) agrees to the publication of the draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans and accessible versions of the draft summary reports as Council policy documents, d) agrees to receive further progress updates on the implementation of the actions described in the draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans when appropriate, and e) notes the potential future funding requirements of actions arising from future studies. 1. Executive Summary 1.1 The Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan (‘the Ayrshire SMP’) was approved and adopted by North Ayrshire Council and South Ayrshire Council in 2018. The Ayrshire SMP is a large-scale assessment of the risks associated with coastal processes and the plan helps to inform the management of these risks to people and to the developed, historic and natural environment. It identifies the preferred shoreline management policies and actions for 32 coastal policy units over the short (0-20 years), medium (20- 50 years) and long (50-100 years) term. 1.2 Since the adoption of the Ayrshire SMP, the understanding of predicted coastal change has improved with the publication of the second edition of the national-scale webmaps by the Dynamic Coast project. Following the updated webmaps, guidance on the development of Coastal Change Adaptation Plans was published by the Scottish Government in February 2023. 1.3 The local understanding of coastal change has also improved with the completion of two coastal management studies at Stevenston and at Irvine in 2024. The Stevenston study was commissioned to build on the community engagement that followed the designation of Stevenston as a ‘Climate Action Town’ in 2021. The study at Irvine was
Page 2
an action arising from the Local Flood Risk Management Plan, which had subsequently been approved by Cabinet on 24 September 2022. 1.4 Given the improved national understanding of coastal change and the improved understanding from the studies completed at Stevenston and Irvine, a funding award of £99k by the Coastal Change Adaptation Programme to North Ayrshire Council has been utilised to complete two draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans (‘Local CCA Plans’) for Stevenston and Irvine. These plans have been completed in accordance with the 2023 Scottish Government guidance. Copies of the draft Local CCA Plans for these locations and their accompanying summary reports are included in Appendices A and B of this report. 2. Background 2.1 Between Skelmorlie in North Ayrshire and the Galloway Burn in South Ayrshire, the Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan identifies 19 separate policy units, 9 of which include mainland coastal locations in North Ayrshire. The isle of Arran is covered by a further 12 policy units while a single policy unit covers the isle of Great Cumbrae. Smaller islands in the Firth of Clyde are not covered by the Ayrshire SMP. 2.2 Each policy unit is further subdivided into management zones which recognise different specific location characteristics or assets. 2.3 Each of the completed draft Local CCA Plans for Stevenston and Irvine covers two management zones within the policy units. The first draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plan (Local CCA Plan) covers Sandylands Promenade (management zone ref. 6c2-B1) and Stevenston Beach (management zone ref. 6c2–B2). The second draft Local CCA Plan covers Irvine Harbour (management zone ref. 6c2–D1) and Irvine Beach (management zone ref. 6c2–D2). Management Zone Policies 2.4 In accordance with Scottish Government guidance on Coastal Change Adaptation (published in February 2023), a short and long-term policy, an action plan, and the triggers for future decision-making were identified for each of the four management zones covered by draft CCA Plans (i.e. Sandylands Promenade, Stevenston Beach, Irvine Harbour and Irvine Beach). 2.5 The four policies that are available to shoreline managers are defined by national guidance and are described below: • ‘Advance the existing defence line’, which allows new defences to be built on the seaward side of the original defences; • ‘Hold the existing defence line’, which allows maintenance and improvement of the existing standard of protection; • ‘Managed realignment’, which represents a policy of allowing the shoreline to move backwards or forwards with management to control or limit movement; and • ‘No active intervention’, whereby there is no investment in coastal defences or operations and the shoreline is either allowed to remain in a natural state or to revert to a natural state. 2.6 The development of the draft CCA Plans included a scenario testing exercise by specialist consultants to assess the predicted implications of each of the four possible policies in order to select a preferred policy for each management zone. The draft policies were informed by this scenario-testing exercise.
Page 3
Draft Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans (CCAP) 2.7 Between Ardrossan and Stevenston, the earlier Ayrshire SMP identified a single policy of ‘Holding the existing line’ over the short-, medium- and long-term. However, the limitations of this broad scale policy are reflected in the developed action plan contained in the Ayrshire SMP, which promotes the implementation of soft engineering methods, such as vegetation restoration, to manage erosion locally at Stevenston Beach. 2.8 The draft Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach Local CCA Plan has identified a short- and long-term policy of ‘holding the existing line’ at Sandylands Promenade and a short- and long-term policy of ‘managed realignment’ at Stevenston Beach. 2.9 The draft policies, including the change from ‘holding the existing line’’ to managed realignment’ at Stevenston Beach remain consistent overall with the action plan described in the Ayrshire SMP for the Ardrossan to Stevenston shoreline. However, at a refined management zone level, the change at Stevenston Beach to managed realignment will address impacts at a local level from erosion arising from, for example, heightened recreational use. 2.10 The study area, preferred shoreline management policies and the action plan in the draft Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach Local CCA Plan is provided in Appendix D of this report. 2.11 The coastal change adaptation issues identified by the draft Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plan are as follows: • the required ongoing maintenance of the seawall at Sandylands Promenade; • the predicted erosion risk to and around the Sandylands Promenade slipway; • the predicted erosion risk to an area of colliery spoil at Stevenston Beach; • the benefits of managing access to reduce the impacts of the recreational use of the beach; and • the required continuation of coastal inspections that should be extended to include the soft shoreline. Draft Coastal Adaptation Actions – Sandylands Promenade & Stevenston Beach 2.12 At Stevenston, both the completed coastal management study and the draft Local CCA Plan has identified the following early or ongoing coastal change adaptation actions: • the continued inspection and maintenance of the seawall at Sandylands Promenade, • a wave study to assess erosion pressures around the slipway at the end of Sandylands promenade and an options appraisal to identify suitable erosion management measures at the interface of the promenade seawall and the soft shoreline, • a site investigation to confirm the composition of the historic colliery spoil that could be affected by coastal erosion, • access management measures to limit the erosion impacts from the recreational use of Stevenston beach, this includes provision of a preferential path route to the beach area which reflects stakeholder consultation, and a potential range of other measures such as signage or fencing directing footfall access; and • the requirement for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the soft shoreline. Draft Irvine Harbour and Irvine Beach Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans
Page 4
(CCAP) 2.13 Between Irvine Bay and the Gailes Burn, the earlier Ayrshire SMP identified a single policy of ‘Holding the existing line’ over the short-, medium- and long-term. However, the limitations of this broad policy are reflected in the developed action plan contained in the Ayrshire SMP, which recognises the importance of maintaining and improving the defences locally at Irvine Harbour but promotes management of the natural dune system on the beach. 2.14 The draft Irvine Harbour and Irvine Beach Local CCAP has identified a short- and long- term policy of ‘holding the existing line’ at Irvine Harbour and a short- and long-term policy of ‘managed realignment’ at Irvine Beach. 2.15 The draft policies, including the change from ‘holding the existing line’ to ‘managed realignment’ at Irvine Beach remain overall consistent with the action plan described in the Ayrshire SMP for the Irvine Bay to Gailes Burn shoreline. However, at a refined management zone level, the change at Irvine Beach to managed realignment will address risks arising from, for example, areas of contaminated soil. 2.16 The study area, the preferred shoreline management policies and the action plan in the draft Irvine Harbour and Irvine Beach Local CCA Plan is provided in Appendix E of this report. 2.17 The coastal change adaptation issues identified by the draft Irvine Harbour and Irvine Beach Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plan are as follows: • the required ongoing maintenance of the coastal protection structures at Irvine Harbour; • the predicted erosion risk to an area of suspected contaminated spoil at Irvine Beach; • the benefits of managing access to reduce the impacts of the recreational use of the beach; and • the required continuation of coastal inspections that should be extended to include the soft shoreline. Draft Coastal Adaptation Actions – Irvine Harbour & Irvine Beach 2.18 At Irvine, both the completed coastal management study and the draft Local CCA Plan have identified the following early or ongoing coastal adaptation actions: • the continued inspection and maintenance of the defences at Irvine Harbour, • a site investigation to confirm the composition of the historic industrial spoil that could be affected by coastal erosion, • access management measures to limit the erosion impacts from the recreational use of Irvine Beach and from the potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Great Harbour masterplan, this could include similar range of measures to Stevenston Beach but this requires to be determined by appraisal and subsequent consultation as required; and. • the requirement for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the soft shoreline. Funding 2.19 North Ayrshire Council and South Ayrshire Council each secured funding of £99k from the Coastal Change Adaptation Programme in 2024 to bring forward the planned update of the Ayrshire SMP with a Coastal Change Adaptation Plan that would accord with the recommendations of the 2023 guidance. The draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans at ‘Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach’ and at ‘Irvine
Page 5
Harbour and Irvine Coast’ mark the start of this process and further work will be jointly procured by North Ayrshire Council and South Ayrshire Council to extend the coastal adaptation plan work as this budget allows. 2.20 Funding of £200k has already been secured from the Coastal Change Adaptation Programme and up to £50k has been committed by Network rail to help meet the early actions identified in the draft Local CCA Plans. These actions are as follows: • to undertake repair works to the Sandylands slipway and to commission a further study to help identify how best to adapt to the erosion risk at the east end of Sandylands Promenade, • to investigate the suspected contamination at Stevenston beach and at Irvine beach, and • to begin improving access to Stevenston Beach by upgrading an existing informal path. 2.21 The Irvine Harbour defences and part of the Sandylands Promenade seawall are already regularly inspected by North Ayrshire Council and this arrangement shall continue to be funded from existing Council revenue budgets. The additional requirement to inspect and maintain the soft shoreline within Council owned land shall also be met through existing revenue budgets. 3. Proposals 3.1 It is proposed that Cabinet: (a) notes the work carried out to date; (b) approves the draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans and the accompanying summary reports; (c) agrees to publish the draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans and accessible versions of the summary reports as Council policy documents; (d) agrees to receive further progress updates on the implementation of the draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans when appropriate; and (e) notes the potential future funding requirements of actions arising from future studies. 4. Implications/Socio-economic Duty Financial 4.1 The development of an Ayrshire-wide Coastal Change Adaptation Plan and a number of the early actions identified in the draft Local CCA Plans has already secured external funding as stated in the report. 4.2 Significant repair or improvement work or the construction of any new coast protection assets at either Stevenston or Irvine shorelines or any other significant repair or improvement work to coast protection assets, including soft shorelines, would require funding to be secured from Council’s general capital budget or central government funding should it become available for formal coastal protection schemes. Human Resources 4.3 The required inspection, repair and improvement of the soft shoreline would place additional pressures on the Council’s flooding and structures inspectors. This impact would be manged by additional training on the inspection of flood assets. Legal
Page 6
4.4 The draft Coastal Change Adaptation Plans will help the Council, as coast protection authority, to exercise the powers and duties conferred or imposed by the Coast Protection Act 1949 and would also help to meet the Council’s landowner responsibilities. Equality/Socio-economic 4.5 The draft Coastal Change Adaptation Plans rely on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) that were undertaken to support the development of the Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan. Other appropriate assessments will be undertaken as required during the implementation of the draft action plans to assess the sustainability of the any proposed measure and to avoid, reduce or minimise any impacts on people and the environment. Climate Change and Carbon 4.6 The draft Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans help the Council, as landowner, to adapt to the predicted erosion impacts that are driven by climate change and sea-level rise. Key Priorities 4.7 The completed Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plans and the implementation of the actions described in the plans shall contribute to the following key priorities of the Council, which are to: • ensure our places and spaces where we live, work and visit are well maintained and accessible; • Improve communities’ preparedness to deal with the impacts of climate change already locked-in; • Take a nature-based approach to protect our habitats and species. • Use dynamic data and lived experiences to inform decision-making. Community Wealth Building 4.8 The procurement of services shall seek to use existing Council framework contracts that attract community benefits. 4.9 The maintenance of safe shoreline habitats promotes accessibility and encourages tourism to enhance local businesses and amenities. Islands Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) 4.10 None. United Nations Rights of the Child (UNCRC) 4.11 None. Consumer Duty 4.12 None.
Page 7
5. Consultation 5.1 The draft Coastal Change Adaptation Plans build on and summarise the outcomes of the completed coastal management studies, which were guided by targeted consultations in March 2024 and July 2024. A public in-person and online consultation on beach management at Stevenston and at Irvine was held in September 2024. There were 18 responses received in response to the public consultation about the management of Stevenston beach and 24 responses were received in response to the public consultation about the management of Irvine beach. These consultation responses helped to inform the actions, for example on improved Stevenston beach access route. 5.2 Further consultations will be carried out as part of the development of future adaptation actions. RUSSELL McCUTCHEON Executive Director (Place) For further information please contact Marc Miller, Team Leader (Flooding), on 01294 317285 Background Papers 0
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 ii HASKONINGDHV UK LTD. 2nd Floor One Strawberry Lane Newcastle NE1 4BX United Kingdom Water & Maritime VAT registration number: 792428892 Phone: +44 191 2111300 Email: info@uk.rhdhv.com Website: royalhaskoningdhv.com Document title: North Ayrshire Coastal Change Adaptation Plan Subtitle: Stevenston and Irvine Beach Frontages Reference: PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 Your reference Click or tap here to enter text. Status: Final/1 Date: 4 April 2025 Project name: North Ayrshire CCAP Project number: PC5329 Author(s): Drafted by: Checked by: Date: 03/04/2025 Approved by: Date: 04/04/2025 Classification: Project related Unless otherwise agreed with the Client, no part of this document may be reproduced or made public or used for any purpose other than that for which the document was produced. HaskoningDHV UK Ltd. accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for this document other than towards the Client. Please note: this document contains personal data of employees of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd.. Before publication or any other way of disclosing, this report needs to be anonymized, unless anonymisation of this document is prohibited by legislation.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 iv Table of Contents 1 Approach to development of the North Ayrshire CCAP 1 1.1 Concept and Principles 2 1.1.1 Core Principles 2 1.1.2 Key Objectives 2 1.2 Delivery 2 1.2.1 Stage 1 2 1.2.2 Stage 2 3 1.2.3 Application to the North Ayrshire Coastline. 4 1.3 Communication 4 1.4 Environmental Assessment 4 1.5 Context for division of coastline 5 1.5.1 Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan 5 1.5.2 Revised approach in developing local CCAPs. 6 1.6 Ongoing Process of Management 8 2 Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plan 6c2.B 9 2.1 General Characterisation 10 2.1.1 Key Issues and Objectives. 13 2.1.2 Previous studies and current policy 13 2.2 Physical Baseline 15 2.2.1 Coastal Form and Geomorphology 15 2.2.2 Tide and water levels 16 2.2.3 Wave Climate 17 2.2.4 Sediment Transport 17 2.2.5 Primary Control Features 18 2.2.6 Coastal Change 19 2.2.7 Flooding 21 2.3 Discussion of Management 23 2.3.1 General 23 2.3.2 6c2.B1 - Sandylands Promenade 25 2.3.2.1 Initial Screening of Coastal Change Adaptation Policies 25 2.3.2.2 Consultation 27 2.3.3 6c2.B2 - Stevenston Beach 28 2.3.3.1 Initial Screening of Coastal Change Adaptation Policies 28 2.3.3.2 Consultation 30 2.4 Summary of Local CCAP 32 2.4.1 Coastal Change Adaptation and Action Plan 33 2.4.1.1 Dynamic Adaptive Pathway 33 2.4.1.2 Action Plan 35
Page 12
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 v 3 Local Coastal Change Management Plan 6c2.D 36 3.1 General Characterisation 37 3.1.1 Key Issues and Objectives 39 3.1.2 Previous studies and current policy 40 3.2 Physical Baseline 42 3.2.1 Coastal Form and Geomorphology 42 3.2.2 Tide and water levels 43 3.2.3 Wave Climate 44 3.2.4 Sediment Transport 45 3.2.5 Primary Control Features 46 3.2.6 Flooding 48 3.3 Discussion of Management 50 3.3.1 General 50 3.3.2 6c2.D1 - Irvine Harbour 52 3.3.2.1 Initial Screening of Coastal Change Adaptation Policies 52 3.3.2.2 Consultation 53 3.3.3 6c2.D2 - Irvine Beach to Gailes Burn 54 3.3.3.1 Initial Screening of Coastal Change Adaptation Policies 54 3.3.3.2 Consultation 56 3.4 Summary of Local CCAP 57 3.4.1 Coastal Change Adaptation and Action Plan 58 3.4.1.1 Dynamic Adaptive Pathway 58 3.4.1.2 Action Plan 60 Table of Tables Table 1-1: Ayrshire SMP Sub-cell 6c2 Policy 6 Table 1-2: CCAP Management Zones 7 Table 2-1: Water levels (baseline 2024) with change in water levels with sea level rise based on UKCP18 RCP8.5 95%’ile. 16 Table 2-2: Nearshore wave climate 17 Table 2-3: Policy Assessment - 6c2.B1-Sandylands Promenade 26 Table 2-4: Policy Assessment - 6c2.B2 Stevenston Beach 30 Table 2-5: Summary of high level CCAP policies 32 Table 2-6: Local CCAP Action Plan 35 Table 3-1: Water levels (baseline 2024) with change in water levels with sea level rise based on UKCP18 RCP8.5 95%’ile. 44 Table 3-2: Irvine wave climate. 44 Table 3-3: Projected rates of sea level rise. 47 Table 3-4: Policy Assessment - 6c2.D1 - Irvine Harbour 53 Table 3-5: Policy Assessment - 6c2.D2 Irvine Beach to Gailes Burn 55
Page 13
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 vi Table 3-6: Summary of high level CCAP policies 57 Table 3-7: Local CCAP Action Plan 60 Table of Figures Figure 1-1: SMP sub-division of the coast. 5 Figure 2-1: CCAP 6c2.B Location Plan. 10 Figure 2-2: SSSI designated area. 11 Figure 2-3: Stevenston Beach LNR. 12 Figure 2-4: Projections of erosion from Dynamic Coast. 15 Figure 2-5: Projections of erosion from Dynamic Coast. 17 Figure 2-6: Longshore wave energy. 18 Figure 2-7: Projections of erosion east (over 20, 50, 80 and 100 years). 20 Figure 2-8: Projections of erosion west (over 20, 50, 80 and 100 years). The inset shows the projected erosion at the transition). 20 Figure 2-9: Present day direct flood risk. 21 Figure 2-10: Future Flood Risk 22 Figure 2-11: Dynamic Adaptive Pathway 34 Figure 3-1: CCAP 6c2D Location Plan 37 Figure 3-2: Current active use based Strava's Global Heatmap. 38 Figure 3-3: Designated sites. 39 Figure 3-4: General geomorphology covering the wider area. 42 Figure 3-5: Wave Climate. 44 Figure 3-6: Longshore wave energy. 45 Figure 3-7: projected future erosion distances. 47 Figure 3-8: Present day direct flood risk. 48 Figure 3-9: Future Flood Risk 49 Figure 3-10: Dynamic Adaptive Pathway. 59 Appendices Provided under separate cover.
Page 14
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 1 Preface North Ayrshire Council (NAC) has appointed Royal HaskoningDHV (RHDHV) to assist in developing their approach to Coastal Change Adaptation Plans (CCAP) for the North Ayrshire coastline. The North Ayrshire coastline is approximately 150km in length, including around 50km associated with the mainland and a further 100km of shoreline associated with the two main islands of Great Cumbrae and Arran. While the shoreline comprises long lengths of natural cliffs and dunes there are also significant lengths protected by manmade defences to important towns such as Skelmorlie, Largs, Fairlie, Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenston and Irvine on the mainland and Millport, Brodick, Lamlash and Whiting Bay on the islands. In addition, there are numerous smaller villages, ports and harbours, together with important transport routes, all set within an area of important natural landscape and significant ecological value. The coastline, therefore, presents a complex challenge for coastal and shoreline management that must take account of the significant detailed local needs alongside the need to consider important interactions across a much broader area. North Ayrshire Council wish to ensure that in developing their CCAP, that the CCAP covering any specific area captures both this local complexity of issues alongside understanding how critical areas interact. At present the North Ayrshire coastline is covered by the Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), developed in 2018. The SMP sets out policy for coastal risk management over the North & South Ayrshire coastline. In addition to this there have been significant studies undertaken of specific local areas. The approach taken to the development of the CCAP aims to build upon the work already undertaken, maintain continuity in management, and consolidate previous information, in line with the recent guidance from Scottish Government (2023) on the development of CCAPs. The overall approach is described in more detail in Section 1 of this Report but in essence aims to develop local area CCAPs, drawing on existing information but including more recent local studies, building this together in a consistent manner to create a CCAP over the whole coastline. Within the context of the overall approach, this report focusses on two specific areas, where detailed studies have been undertaken: • Saltcoats to Stevenston Point • Irvine Harbour to Gailes The opportunity has been taken to slightly broaden the geographic scope beyond the immediate areas of study to provide further context for management; but still building this on the initial sub-division of the coast presented in the SMP, as discussed in Section 1. In this way the local detailed studies have formed the basis of the local CCAPs developed for each area, ensuing that the local CCAPs still capture the necessary broader understanding of coastal issues. It is intended that an overall CCAP will be developed by NAC, in discussion with key stakeholders, to cover the full North Ayrshire coastline. The initial local CCAPs (Section 2 and 3 of this report) are effectively produced as stand-alone documents, set out in a format that can be adopted for the wider area. Specific Studies The initial scope of the two specific study areas included:
Page 15
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 2 1. The identification of suitable and implementable soft engineering methods to manage coastal erosion at Stevenston Beach; in line with the adopted Ayrshire SMP. 2. A Natural Flood Risk Management study to identify suitable and implementable erosion management for the dune system at Irvine Beach, in line with the adopted Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). 3. The identification and outline design of suitable measures to improve, manage and safeguard beach access, given the deterioration of an existing footbridge over the Stevenston Burn. 4. The identification and outline design of suitable measures to improve, manage and safeguard beach access at Irvine Beach, given the anticipated pressures on Irvine Beach from the effects of North Ayrshire Council’s Great Harbour Masterplan. The initial scoping studies were then developed further into Outline Option Appraisal reports for the two areas which identified and prioritised options considered under item 1 and 3 above. The scoping reports were informed by site walkovers, outputs from the Scottish Government’s Dynamic Coast Project, the existing and predicted physical constraints of the site and working group and public consultations. In line with the recent national guidance on Coastal Change Adaptation Plans (CCAPs), further consideration was given to the natural evolution of the coast, examining the potential timescales of change. This refined the work taken of the Dynamic Coast Project, which was updated based on detailed Lidar survey data (Phase 1 - 2010 and Phase 6 – 2022). As well as coastal change predictions over the wider study areas, the reports specifically look at the influence of existing defences, address concerns raised during consultations and consider potential changes outside of the study areas. The reports go on to consider options for management within each of the Zones identified in the scoping reports, considering aspects such as management of footfall and access to the beaches, alongside the uncertainty associated with the potential need for ongoing management of areas of spoil which exist in both study areas. This approach to management is informed by a refined assessment of future change. The reports conclude with a summary and consideration of factors affecting decision pathways in the future. The reports are reproduced under separate cover as Appendix 2A and Appendix 3A in support of the higher level CCAP assessment provided within Sections 2 (Steveston Beach) and 3 (Irvine Beach) respectively, with information being summarised within each section of this report.
Page 16
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 1 1 Approach to development of the North Ayrshire CCAP Scottish Government produced interim guidance (SG2023) for development of Coastal Change Adaptation Plans (CCAP) in February 2023. In providing this guidance it had been recognised that different areas of the Scottish Coastline exhibit very different challenges and that different local authorities have different levels of understanding of their issues. The guidance, therefore, does not prescribe exactly how local authorities should develop their CCAPs. Instead, it intends to provide guidance as to what they should seek to achieve and how it might be delivered. Indeed, to a degree, the guidance aims to allow and encourage individual authorities to explore how best, in their areas, the CCAPs should be taken forward. The Scottish Government will seek feedback from local authorities on the guidance and aims to monitor its efficacy in securing sustainable outcomes in respect of coastal management. The intention is that the guidance will be revised, reviewed, and refined based on user feedback and as the evidence evolves. The guidance specifically notes: • “Coastal processes do not conform to administrative boundaries and neither do many infrastructure assets and communities. It is essential therefore that CCAPs are progressed in a way that reflects coastal processes systems and not administrative boundaries.” Furthermore, that, “one size does not fit all, and this guidance recognises the need to maintain flexibility for appropriate local and regional CCAP delivery structures to emerge.” Notwithstanding this element of exploration, the guidance provides a strong framework within which local authorities are expected to operate. The SG2023 does, however, note that several Shoreline Management Plans have already been published in Scotland over the last 20 years. The majority of these follow the Shoreline Management Plan Guidance produced for England and Wales (DEFRA, 2006) and therefore, much of the groundwork for CCAPs has already been done in these areas. This is the case for North Ayrshire. As such the opportunity is being taken, through the development of the North Ayrshire CCAP, to review, provide greater clarity and in some areas revise the SMP. This recognises that in several areas, covered by the SMP, more local detailed studies have been undertaken and that there is the need to capture this new information. As discussed later in Section 1.5, as far as possible, the structure and way in which the coast has been divided and described within the SMP has been maintained. This aims to provide a degree of continuity between the SMP and the CCAP. As part of developing the CCAP, there is the need to consider the specific nature of the North Ayrshire coastline, covering a length of some 150km of shoreline, including areas of the mainland alongside the principal islands of Great Cumbrae and Arran. Within this length of coast, there is large variation in the coastal character. In some areas such as the major towns there are significant lengths of man-made protection. In many other areas there are small settlements alongside many small ports and local harbours, all set within broader areas of natural shoreline. There is, therefore, a clear need to adapt the level of detail provided by the CCAP to reflect the local nature of the coastline in any location and to maintain relevance to future management of specific areas. Given the initial background and structure provided by the SMP in identifying the broader
Page 17
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 2 interdependencies throughout the area, this provides the opportunity to focus in more detail on individual areas. To this end, the approach being taken to the development of the CCAP process is to develop a series of local CCAPs. It is recognised that this process will be ongoing but it does also allow focus on areas where further information and study has been carried out. The intent is to develop these local CCAPs in a consistent format around the whole coastline, ultimately allowing collation of these local CCAPs as one CCAP for North Ayrshire. The local CCAPs are developed based on the underlying concept and principles set out in the SG2023. 1.1 Concept and Principles 1.1.1 Core Principles The overall the aims of the CCAP are: • to create a vision for well-adapted and resilient management, properly integrated into other policies by taking a more land use planning approach, avoiding locking-in future generations to unsustainable actions, considering that sea levels are expected to continue to rise well beyond the end of this century; • to seek opportunities to support and regenerate communities and address inequalities. In particular, policy should anticipate that changes to property protection and property values will increasingly come into focus as adaptation pathways are developed; and • to deliver multiple benefits (for example economic, environmental or amenity enhancements), and to promote sustainable infrastructure and work to preserve natural features and ecosystems. 1.1.2 Key Objectives In line with the core principles the following overall objectives of the CCAP are: • To promote the resilience of our natural coastline and begin the process of adaptation to climate change; • To set out a process for a proactive approach to coastal adaptation planning that will maximise opportunities and minimise risk from climate change impacts; • To ensure our collective coastal adaptation journey starts now; and • To support local authorities to begin the process. 1.2 Delivery The SG2023 suggests that the CCAP development process might typically be undertake in two stages. This suggested process, as described in the SG2023, is set out below. 1.2.1 Stage 1 CCAPs are expected to provide within Stage 1: • A solid understanding of the overall coastal processes, looking both at the more immediate aspects of risk of coastal erosion and associated flooding as well as looking longer term at the potential risks and pressures that may occur or develop. • An initial assessment of policies for management of risk, defining these in term of three headline policies: o Hold the Existing Line (HTEL) o Managed Realignment (MR)
Page 18
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 3 o No Active intervention (NAI) The guidance suggests that Stage 1 should broadly follow the process provided by the Defra 2006 Guidance for Shoreline Management Plans. However, SG2023 emphasises key modifications to Defra 2006, both in attitude and practice. In relation to this, the SG2023 specifically notes that: • “The traditional approach to shoreline management planning whereby a draft plan is produced and put out for consultation at a relatively late stage in the process, is not appropriate for the conversations that we need to have about future coastal change. The most sustainable solutions come from involving many perspectives and insights at an early stage.” • “Whilst artificial structures will continue to play a valuable role in the protection of people, property and assets at the shoreline, there needs to be acceptance of their limitations under the current sea level rise projections. Within future coastal change adaptation planning there should be a general presumption against installing new artificial structures. Consideration should be given to the wisdom of maintaining existing structures especially when they reach the end of their design life.” • Taking a place-based approach involves dealing with complexity and considering all the physical, social, and economic elements of a place collectively. Working in a place-based way can identify key relationships and solve problems that cannot be solved incrementally or by one person or organisation acting alone.” “….the different arrangements for coastal management in Scotland…allows local authorities to widen the scope of strategic planning beyond the ‘shoreline’ to include the coastal hinterland and allow planning space for relocation adaptation.” • “Whereas Defra’s SMP guidance for England and Wales requires working with defined periods of short term (up to 20 years), medium term (20 to 50 years) and long term (50 to 100 years), for Scotland the preferred policies should be assigned only to the short term (present) and the long term (where we want to be before the end of the appraisal period).” Stage 1, therefore, aims to define “where we are now” and, from this, taking a longer term broader perspective, identifying “what are the challenges and where there is need or opportunity for change”. 1.2.2 Stage 2 Stage 2 aims to translate high level policy choices, made during Stage 1, into deliverable Adaptation Plans. The Scottish Government wants to ensure adaptation actions are forecast and planned for in good time. Stage 1 identifies where there is the opportunity or need for change, whether this is with respect to: • on-going coastal change as a result of policies of NAI or MR • areas where there is change in policy intent (i.e. moving from HTEL or MR to MR or NAI) • or indeed where there are opportunities to change (modify) the approach taken to HTEL, allowing a more sustainable approach to sustaining protection. Stage 2 considers how such change might be achieved and managed. This starts from identifying what and when actions need to be put in place. This has to consider what is driving the need for change “Change Points” or “Physical Triggers,” basically setting the anticipated timescale for change. Alongside this, consideration has to be given to what actions need to have been put in place to allow change to occur or where further information may be required to allow future decisions to be made. Dynamic Adaptation Pathways – the delivery plan. The CCAP (based on the Dynamic Adaptation Pathway) should be framed by the physical triggers but must be flexible enough to allow modification to the pathway to allow adaptation to occur, taking account of new information emerging over time. Such new information may allow more time for adaptation but may also indicate the need to accelerate the rate of adaptive change.
Page 19
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 4 1.2.3 Application to the North Ayrshire Coastline. As noted earlier, some detailed local studies have already been undertaken in North Ayrshire. In effect already having delivered both stages recommended by the guidance (i.e. building from the initial assessment provided by the SMP and developing this through to a more detailed plan for ongoing management). In developing specific local area CCAPs, the aim would be to capture this new information and as necessary, reassess the conclusions of any study against the principles set out in the guidance. Essential to this approach is the need to recognise that coastal management is an ongoing process. The development of the local CCAPs provides the opportunity to review current management practice, while still maintaining a continuity of management, particularly in relation to discussion with stakeholders. In essence, under this local CCAP approach: • Where there are already more detailed studies and management plans in place, these will be reviewed, with the local CCAP being developed retrospectively but ensuring compliance with the principles and objectives set out in SG2023. • Where further studies and management plans are being developed, these studies would include consideration of the wider longer-term issues highlighted by the SG2023 guidance and associated with each study a local CCAP would be developed. • In other areas, initially, policy for management would be defined by the current SMP, with the intent to develop a basic level local CCAP eventually replacing the guidance currently provided by the SMP. This current report sets out a framework within which this process will be developed, with local CCAPs being developed for the two areas of Steveston and Irvine Beach and Harbour. The structure and format for the local CCAPs is as set out in Sections 2 and 3 of this report for these two specific areas. 1.3 Communication Throughout this process, as emphasised by the CCAP guidance there needs to be a focus on good communication and engagement as a central pillar of the CCAP process. As set out in the guidance: • “CCAPs are not something that should be done ‘to’ communities, rather they should be developed, reviewed, communicated, and updated in a long-term partnership between practitioners, residents, and businesses.” • “The conversations that CCAPs will generate will get more difficult as sea level rises, yet communication charged by emotion often leads to misunderstanding and distrust. Communities need planning bodies and regulators to provide clear signals and long-term messaging on sea level rise and coastal change. Therefore, it is important to develop a communications and engagement plan early in the CCAP process and that it remains an integral part of the CCAP. This reinforces the shift towards long term planning and management which is engendered by the process, reinforcing the concept of a dynamic approach to development and maintenance of the Plan both as challenges become more evident and as new information emerges. 1.4 Environmental Assessment Integral to the development of the SMP was the development of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). It is considered appropriate to carry these important assessments forward, in particular in ensuring that issues identified by the SEA & HRA are incorporated
Page 20
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 5 into the general development of local studies. As part of developing the local CCAPs, the SEA and HRA have been reviewed and where appropriate additional information on the broader scale environment is considered. 1.5 Context for division of coastline Essential to the approach in developing local CCAPs is ensuring that for each area there is the correct balance between capturing relevant local detail while equally ensuring that the larger interactions across the shoreline are recognised. This is discussed below. 1.5.1 Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan The administrative boundaries of the Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) (RPS, 2018) extend from the northern boundary of the North Ayrshire Council area to the southern boundary of the South Ayrshire Council area. This is approximately from the town of Skelmorlie to the outlet of the Galloway Burn on the north-eastern edge of Loch Ryan. The islands of Great Cumbrae and Arran are also included within the scope of the Ayrshire SMP, whilst other smaller offshore islands are excluded due to the low number of assets present. In order to facilitate the development and presentation of appropriate shoreline management policies for the Ayrshire coastline it was considered essential to sub-divide the full extent of the Ayrshire coastline into a larger number of smaller geographic sections. The North Ayrshire frontage was subdivided into nine coastal sub- cells relating to sediment supply and transport; 6b1, 6b2, 6c1, 6c2 (located on the mainland), A1, A2, A3 and A4 (covering the island of Arran) and a singular sub-cell for the island of Great Cumbrae as shown in Figure 1.1. The Ayrshire SMP provides sustainable shoreline management policies for the Ayrshire frontage across three epochs. Namely; • Short term (0 to 20 years) • Medium term (20-50 years) • Long term (50-100 years). Four high level Shoreline Management Policies are available to shoreline managers: • Advance the existing defence line. • Hold the existing defence line. • Managed realignment • No active intervention Figure 1-1: SMP sub-division of the coast. The SMP in developing policy further sub-divided the shoreline into Policy Units. In relation to coastal sub- cell 6c2 the sub-cell is divided into four policy units: • 6c2.1 Ardrossan to Stevenston • 6c2.2 Stevenston to Irvine Bay
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 8 Table 1-2 briefly sets out the rational for these sub-divisions and highlights the two areas where Local CCAPs have been developed as discussed in Section 2 (Stevenston Promenade and Beach) and Section 3 (Irvine Harbour to Gailes Burn). 1.6 Ongoing Process of Management The two Local CCAPs are developed from the background of the two Coastal Management Studies recently undertaken (provided under separate cover as Appendix 2A and 3A). These studies focussed on Policy Unit 6c2.B2 (Stevenston Beach) and Policy Unit 6c2.D2 (Irvine Beach). In developing the two Local CCAPs in a coherent manner, consideration has also been given to Policy Unit 6c2.B1 (Sandylands Promenade) and Policy Unit 6c2. (Irvine Harbour). While there is less detail available on these associated areas, a similar CCAP assessment process has been able to be carried out. The intent of the current report is to set out a framework within which Local CCAPs may be prioritised and developed for other area of the North Ayrshire coast, in discussion with stakeholders.
Page 24
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 9 2 Local Coastal Change Adaptation Plan 6c2.B Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach The development of the Local CCAP is set out with an initial discussion and description of the larger CCAP area and subsequent discussion of management of the two specific policy unit areas. The final section brings this together in summarising the intent of the Local CCAP. Overall Plan area: • General Characterisation: o Description, o Identification of key features, issues and objectives, o Previous studies and current management policy. • Physical Baseline: o Geomorphology, o Tide and water levels and sea level rise, o Wave climate, o Sediment transport and control features, o Coastal change and flood risk. Discussion of Management: • General discussion over the wider area, • Local Area (CCAP Policy Unit) assessment; o Initial Screening of Policy Options, o Consultation. Summary of Overall Plan • Overall intent of management, • Policy Summary, • Coastal Change Adaptation and Action Plan; o Dynamic Adaptative Pathway, o Action Plan. A detailed study (Stevenston Beach Coastal Study – RHDHV 2025) of the Stevenston Beach has recently been undertaken, providing more local detail and making specific recommendations for management. This Local CCAP 6c2.B draws strongly on this study, aiming the capture the higher level issues, providing the more strategic context in line with the SG2023 guidance. This report is provided (under separate cover) as Appendix 2A to this CCAP assessment.
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 11 Between Stevenston Burn and the Sandylands Promenade, the dunes are punctuated with an area of coal mining spoil from the historic Auchenharvie Colliery No. 5 pit. With progressive erosion of the dune, the spoil heap has become increasingly exposed at the dune face and now forms a slight headland holding this western section of dunes forward of the natural alignment of the shoreline to the east. There has also been significant ongoing change in the area of the Stevenston Burn with general erosion of the dune spit to the west of the Burn and substantial change of the alignment of the Burn over the foreshore, impacting on the behaviour of the shoreline to the east. Social and Built Environment The most obviously significant infrastructure directly associated with the coast area is the regionally important railway line, this provides a critical part of the public transport network, linking through to Ardrossan and Largs and the ferry links to Great Cumbrae and the Isle of Arran. This vital link is clearly at risk from coastal change should the defence to the railway not be maintained or if there was longer term erosion of the dunes. At a more local level, there are areas of industrial and commercial use immediately behind the railway, together with important local road links and a major caravan park, all within the lower lying hinterland. While property within the towns of Saltcoats and Steveston have been subject to flooding on more extreme events such as Strom Eowyn (January 2025), over the longer term there is an increasing potential risk of coastal flooding associated with sea level rise. The whole coastal strip is also a highly valued and well used active travel route, linking from Stevenston to Largs, both through the dunes and along the promenade. The Stevenston dunes, the open ground behind the dunes and the foreshore and beach are considered to be an essential open space for recreation and amenity. Currently there are community facilities, and a well-used car park situated immediately behind the dunes, which supports and expands the use of the area beyond that of residents of Stevenston, highlighting the importance of the area across the wider North Ayrshire area. Notwithstanding the important amenity value of the area, ad hoc pedestrian trampling, particularly through the dunes, threatens both the ecological function and physical integrity and resilience of the dunes to coastal change. In discussion with local residents and users of the area, undertaken as part of the Stevenston Beach Coastal Study, key features of value include: the access via the slipway at the eastern of the Promenade, the local headland formed by the spoil heap and the access to and use of the beach to the east of the Steveston Burn. More generally, the connectivity along the whole Stevenson Beach for both walking and horse riding has been identified as being a critical feature of the area. Natural and Historic Environment To the north of the CCAP area is the Ardrossan to Saltcoats Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Geological Conservation Review (GCR) site. This SSSI is notified for its Carboniferous-Permian Igneous Geological feature. This site was discussed in the SEA developed as part of the SMP development process. Figure 2-2: SSSI designated area.
Page 27
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 12 The SEA concluded that, no impacts are expected on this SSSI from the proposed shoreline management measures owing to a lack of any identifiable impact pathway. This has been reviewed in developing the Local CCAP and confirmed. More locally the Stevenston Beach area is designated both as Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS). The area defined as the LNR is shown in Figure 2-3 (the image is taken from Stevenston Beach Local Nature Reserve Management Plan 2018) covering the western area of dunes. There is an ambition to extend this area to cover the full extent of the LNCS, extending the boundary over the eastern area of dunes and the Stevenston Point. The Stevenston Beach Local Nature Reserve Management Plan 2018 identifies a range of different habitats and features, including: Dune slack, dune heath, fixed and mobile dunes that are all regarded as priorities under the European Habitats Directive. The Plan notes that, given the scarcity of sand dune habitat in southwest Scotland makes the LNR particularly Important. The reserve is particularly unusual in that it supports a succession of most types of dune formation - from embryo dunes to mobile foredunes to fixed dunes and dune slack – stretching over 200m inland. Figure 2-3: Stevenston Beach LNR. Key threats to the reserve are identified as being: • from coastal erosion; although there is a recognition that, in addressing this, this should not constrain natural development of the area. • from pedestrian trampling. The key access points to the area are shown on the image in Figure 2-3, although it should be noted that the bridge over the railway line between the Caravan Park and the dunes has now been closed and that forward bridge access point 6 is no longer available due to change in the position of the Stevenston Burn. While the area has an important industrial heritage, including both Steveston Point and the spoil heap, there are no specific built heritage features considered to be at risk from coastal change. The Environmental Report, developed from the SEA and HRA as part of the SMP process did highlight the presence of the Ardrossan to Saltcoats Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Geological Conservation Review (GCR) site, alongside the Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS). However, with respect to the SSSI it was concluded that there was unlikely to be any significant effect. With respect to the LNR and LNCS, while there was a risk associated with any extension of hard defences impacting on the dunes, the use of soft engineering works was considered to mitigate and potentially enhance the value of the dunes. The potential impact of ongoing erosion of the Spoil Heap was, however, noted, recognising that, following further investigation, should this be an issue, this impact would need to be mitigated. The HRA concluded that there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on nature conservation interests, particularly those with statutory protection such as Natura sites.
Page 28
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 13 2.1.1 Key Issues and Objectives. Issues From the above description the key issues are in relation to: • The risk to the railway line and the hinterland area inland of the railway. • The potential increased flood risk to property within Saltcoats and Stevenston. • The potential longer-term risk to the railway line due to erosion of the dunes. • The risk to the active travel route behind the dunes and along the Promenade. • The ongoing erosion and coastal change to the dunes and the potential impact on and impact of the recreational use of the area. • The need to maintain the open space use of the area. • The management of the transition between the hard defence of the Promenade and the natural dunes. • The ongoing erosion of the spoil heap considering potential release of contamination alongside considering the impact on use and coastal change. • The important landscape and natural environment of the area. Objectives for Management (including those defined by the SG2023 guidance). The following core objectives are set for management of the area, based on the issues identified above: • To minimise, as far as possible, reliance on hard coastal management. • To support the natural development of the shoreline, considering opportunity for enhancing the natural function of the area, with a focus on adaptation to coastal change. • To maintain the important regional transport network. • To maintain and, as far as possible, to enhance the active travel interconnectivity across the area. • To maintain and, as far as possible, to improve access to the use and enjoyment of the important amenity and recreational value of the area (recognising the potential impacts on the natural function of the area and the need to improve access for different coastal users). • To consider and address the transition between the existing hard defence to the west and the natural dune line. It is noted that to some degree there may be conflict in fully achieving all objectives and that all objectives may not, therefore be achievable. 2.1.2 Previous studies and current policy There have been a number of previous studies undertaken covering this frontage, including; • Irvine to Ardrossan Coastal Study (Royal Haskoning 2005) • Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan (RPS, 2018) • Dynamic Coast • Stevenston Climate Action Town Workshops (2023) • Community Led Adaptation Plan Climate Action Towns Final Report (February 2024) • Stevenston Beach Coastal Study (Royal HaskoningDHV, 2025) Previous Policy and Current Management The current SMP Policy Unit 6c2.1 encompasses Ardrossan to Stevenston Point. The plan for Policy Unit 6c2.1 is to hold the line across the short-term, medium-term and long-term. This overall policy at the scale of the SMP, takes account of the significant infrastructure and property at risk over the northern part of the policy unit. The Plan also recognises the specific nature of Stevenson Beach.
Page 29
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 14 In particular, the Plan recognised the dunes at Stevenston as a whole and as part of the overall defence system to the hinterland. Recognising the erosion that was occurring, the SMP recommended the need to manage erosion at Stevenston beach, promoting the use of soft engineering methods to do so. The Community Led Adaptation Plans recognised the ongoing problem of erosion to the Steveston Beach and that with Climate Change this would present challenges for management. Overall, the Adaptation Plan recognises the need to manage the area in a manner sympathetic to coastal change avoiding the need for hard defence.
Page 30
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 15 2.2 Physical Baseline 2.2.1 Coastal Form and Geomorphology The frontage extends across the lower lying valley running to the east back through the town of Stevenston (Figure 2.4). The valley is formed by the higher ground to the north, underly much of Saltcoats, and by the higher ground running back from Stevenston Point. Typical, ground levels within the valley are around 4.5m OD to the back of the coast, rising to around 6m OD to 7m OD further inland. The higher ground to the north runs out to the rock outcrop underlying Saltcoats Harbour. This rock outcrop and the harbour structures form the northern headland to the Local CCAP area. The nature of the higher ground running inland from Steveston Point is understood to have been built up with colliery waste over the natural dunes. Steveston Point was constructed out by deposition of waste out over the naturally sandy foreshore. The Point was constructed over the early part of the last century and now acts as the southern headland to the area, influencing the behaviour of the southern foreshore and, effectively separating the Local CCAP area from the coastal interaction with the shoreline running south along the Ardeer Peninsula. Figure 2-4: Projections of erosion from Dynamic Coast. The constraint imposed by the two headlands has allowed further development of the natural dune system. This natural alignment has, however, been significantly altered and advanced by the construction of the railway and the hard defence (The Promenade) to the railway line. Quite clearly, as a result of the construction of the Promenade, the foreshore width has been squeezed over the northern section of the frontage, with progressive lowering of the beach in this area. In the absence of this defence, it seems probable that dunes the dune system would have extended further to
Page 31
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 16 the north, across the valley but set back typically by some 150m compared to the current defence alignment. More specifically across the Stevenston Beach area, historically there has been a progressive process of erosion, driven to a large degree by an apparent reduction of sediment feed to the overall embayment, but also, potentially by the construction of the Promenade. In addition to increased erosion at the backshore, this has manifested in significant change to over the foreshore and the reduction in the dune spit across the mouth of the Steveston Burn. Associated with this change, there has been a progressive emergence of the base of the Spoil Heap (the Headland), which is having an increasing impact on the development of the western dunes system. With sea level rise there will be increased pressure on the defence along the Promenade, increased the erosion at the end of the Promenade and general increased erosion over the whole length of the dune system. With further emergence of the spoil heap, this continues to erode at a slower rate. A more detailed assessment of the geomorphological development and change is covered in the Stevenston Beach Coastal Study. 2.2.2 Tide and water levels Table 2-1 sets out the Tide and extreme waters relevant to the area, including the projection of water levels with sea level rise. Table 2-1: Water levels (baseline 2024) with change in water levels with sea level rise based on UKCP18 RCP8.5 95%’ile. Base year 2024 Water levels with Climate change sea level rise 2050 2075 2100 2125 Astronomic Tide levels Mean low water Spring (MLWS) -1.3 -1.12 -0.84 0.49 -0.08 Mean low water Neap (MLWN) -0.7 -0.52 -0.24 0.11 0.5 Mean high water Neap (MHWN) 0.90 1.08 1.36 1.71 2.1 Mean high water Spring (MHWS) 1.5 1.68 1.64 1.83 2.7 Highest Astronomic Tide 2.01 2.15 2.34 2.57 3.21 Extreme water levels 1 in 1 yr. (T1) 2.68 2.87 3.14 3.14 3.88 1 in 10 yr (T10) 3.09 3.28 3.55 3.55 4.29 1 in 50 yr (T50) 3.39 3.58 3.85 3.85 4.59 1 in 100 yr (T100) 3.52 3.71 3.98 3.98 4.72 1 in 200 yr (T200) 3.65 3.84 4.11 4.46 4.85 Note all values given as m. OD. Astronomical tidal levels shown in Table 2-1 derived from POLTIPS for the nearest ‘Standard Port’ of Irvine, with present day extreme water levels based on the 2017 Boundary Conditions report.
Page 32
No embedded text on this page.
Page 33
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 18 Figure 2-6: Longshore wave energy. Significant to the management of the area, the Figure shows that effectively, for all wave directions, over the Sandylands Promenade section the longshore energy is towards the south towards Stevenston Beach. However the plot also shows that for the dominant wave directions the magnitude of this southerly drift potential tends to fall off suggesting a low drift over the western section of dunes. Within the lee of Steveston Point the drift rates tend to be more typically towards the north. In interpreting this, it is noted that as sediment was lost from the foreshore in front of the Promenade, there would be a reduced sediment supply to the dunes, with a tendency for the pattern of erosion to move to the east. However, importantly the plots also highlight that across the southern section of the bay and extending part way back across the dunes there would tend to be sediment accretion. Key Interactions From the above, rather than the Promenade defence disrupting the sediment drift pattern, it has been the reduction of sediment supply from the foreshore to the west that has resulted in the erosion to the frontage to the east. Furthermore, the plot shows the significant benefit derived from the shelter provided by Steveston Point in creating an area of relatively stability over the east beach area. 2.2.5 Primary Control Features The primary control features associated with the area are the two main headlands, creating the overall bay shape. Within the embayment, the Promenade defence fixes the position of the shoreline and has historically influenced the supply of sediment to the east. When first constructed, the prom resulted in sediment being lost from the foreshore in front of the wall. This would have initially benefited the dunes until the
Page 34
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 19 beach supply was exhausted, subsequently reducing this supply as further erosion of the coast was prevented. The development of the local headland forming at the Spoil Heap will, over time, increasingly influence the developing shape of the western part of the Stevenston Beach area, tending to retain the alignment of the dunes to the west but also, potentially limiting change between the headland and the Burn. 2.2.6 Coastal Change Historic Past coastal change at Stevenston Beach has been assessed using geo-rectified historic maps that are available to view on the National Library of Scotland’s website (Map images - National Library of Scotland (nls.uk)). Further detail on historical change can be found in the coastal management study. In summary of historical change, it is seen that there has been significant longer term change and erosion across the main area of the bay and that: • As the backshore has set back this has exposed features within the local hinterland which have had a more significant influence on the shoreline shape – most notably at the spoil headland and in relation to the outfall. • As the backshore sets back this has created a more distinct interface between the hard defence to the west and the more natural area of dune. • The set back of the shoreline and reduction of the larger dune system has had less influence on the position of the back channel to Burn, such that the Burn now encounters the shoreline much closer to where the channel cuts initially to the shore. Present day Google Earth air imagery together with available Lidar has been used to examine recent coastal change. Phase I and Phase VI Lidar was obtained from the Scottish Government Remote Sensing Portal with Lidar covering 2011/12 and 2021/22. Recent coastal change can be summarised as follows: • There has been ongoing erosion immediately to the south of the northern slipway, with erosion at a typical rate of around 0.6m/yr. • The dune between this area of erosion and the spoil headland has remained relatively stable. • The influence of the spoil headland has become more evident, with deposition of spoil at the crest of the beach. However, at the eastern side of the headland there appears to have been ongoing erosion of the cliff face at a typical rate of around 0.2m/yr. • There has been substantial erosion of the dune spit to the western side of the Burn. The head of the spit has retreated to the west and is now, effectively in line with upstream alignment of the Burn. The face of the dune has set back in the order of 10m. • Apart from change directly associated with the position of the outfall channel of the Burn, the backshore to the east of the Burn has remained relatively stable with some potential accretion. Notwithstanding local change and variation due to storm periods and periods of local beach building, it is concluded that the overall change is quite fundamental and will continue to develop in the future. Future projections With sea level rise the whole alignment of the frontage will attempt to roll back, adjusting to the increased water depth and consequential increase in wave heights.
Page 35
No embedded text on this page.
Page 36
No embedded text on this page.
Page 37
No embedded text on this page.
Page 38
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 23 2.3 Discussion of Management 2.3.1 General No Active Intervention In line with the SG2023 guidance the starting point for assessing ongoing management is an initial presumption that the coast should be allowed to evolve naturally, moving away from maintaining existing defences. In effect this presumption aims to challenge the perspective that just because defences are currently in place they should be maintained. This aims to test the benefit that existing defences deliver alongside examining the degree to which defences might realistically be sustained over the longer term, considering also what capacity there is for adaptation to change. In terms of the overall area, the main coastal defence is the seawall fronting the Promenade. This protects the use of the Promenade, the railway line and, over the longer term, protects critical areas of the hinterland. Recognising the current deterioration of the defence and the worsening of the situation with sea level rise this current defence might be expected to fail in, potentially 20 to 50 years’ time. Under this general scenario, no action would be taken to repair the defence and failure over the wider area would rapidly occur, with progressive and quite rapid erosion potential and eventually back by some 150m into the hinterland. This would have major consequence both locally and in terms of use of the much wider area. Assuming that a major “clean-up” operation was undertaken, the erosion of the frontage has potential to release additional sediment to the coastal system, with potentially some benefit to the dunes but, over the longer-term, with the whole bay re-adjusting to a more natural alignment, which would continue to roll back. Under this effective No Active Intervention approach, there would be continued erosion of the Stevenston Beach dunes as discussed in Section 2.2.6 but with no active management of the use of the area. While there would be some continued natural development of the foredune area, this would continue to be in conflict with the use of the area. With Current Management The current SMP policy is for Hold the Line (HTL) over the whole area. However, over the Stevenston Beach area this policy was qualified, suggesting that, in detail, holding the line would involve the use of soft engineering methods, although no specific details were provided as to what this might involve. Holding the Line over the Promenade area would require significant future investment to address both the increasing risk of undermining and increasing risk of overtopping. Critically, the current level of the promenade is typically set at a level of around 4.6m OD, with a crest wall over the critical area set at around 5.5m OD. While it might be feasible to increase the height of the wall, adapting in this way would have serious consequences in terms of the use of the promenade and on the visual appearance of the defence. Over the full 100 years considered by the CCAP, it is noted that the promenade would be submerged typically during a 1 in 50 year extreme water level event. More strategically, continued defence of the promenade based on the current linear approach to management, would hold the alignment of the defence at its eastern end, increasingly in advance of the alignment of the of the dunes to the east, increasing the discontinuity between the two frontages. In terms of the dune system, in the recent past, attempts have been made to install sand fencing and local soft engineering approaches to management as suggested by the SMP. Due to the pressure from erosion
Page 39
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 24 and the fundamental system changes occurring, such works have not been successful. The Stevenston Beach Coastal Study has examined this in more detail and concludes that without major sediment restoration, which would involve major intervention and would only be feasible at a wider scale encompassing the promenade area, to effectively hold the line there would be the need for, potentially locally, hard intervention. This, together with the issues relating to the transition between the Promenade and the dune, the potential release of contaminated material from the exposed spoiled heap and the longer-term issues around maintaining and manging the use of the area, poses a significant challenge in delivering the HTL policy set out in the SMP. This overall assessment of management is taken forward in considering setting specific policy for the two CCAP Policy Units, recognising that interaction between the two areas.
Page 40
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 25 2.3.2 6c2.B1 - Sandylands Promenade 2.3.2.1 Initial Screening of Coastal Change Adaptation Policies No Active Intervention (NAI) A No Active Intervention (Do Nothing) approach would result in the continued degradation of the sea wall and promenade. This would ultimately lead to the increasing rates of overtopping associated with sea level rise which would affect the functionality of the promenade and have a significant impact on the long- term viability of the railway. The wall and promenade would ultimately fail, likely due to undercutting and washout of the wall toe, or due to failure of the superstructure. Failure of the wall would result in the loss of the Promenade and the railway line and over the longer-term significant loss and disruption to the current use of the hinterland. There would be significant negative economic impacts on the towns of Saltcoats, Ardrossan and Stevenston associated with the loss of the railway. These would also contribute to regional and national losses. There is little or no opportunity for sensible and appropriate adaptation to these impacts. A No Active Intervention approach is not considered to be an acceptable approach due to these impacts. Critically, this assessment assumes the realistic continued use and importance of the railway line over the long term. In the long term future (one hundred years and beyond) this would need to be reviewed, given the increased pressure on the defence. Manged Realignment (MR) Given the proximity of the railway and the associated value of the Promenade in providing an important and valued active travel route, there is very limited or no opportunity for managed realignment of the existing defence line. This option is not, therefore considered viable. Again, critically, this assessment assumes the realistic continued use and importance of the railway line over the long term. In the long-term future (100 years and beyond) this would need to be reviewed, given the increased pressure on the defence. Should, in the future, there be any discussion related to the ongoing use and alignment of the railway line, then this option would need to be considered further, considering any opportunity this might give to realignment of the defence. Hold the Existing Line (HTEL) Under this current management approach potentially over the next 20 years it might be possible to adopt a Do Minimum approach, sustaining the existing sea wall, with the potential need to extend the local area of rock toe to reduce overtopping and address under mining. Beyond this period, a basic Do Minimum approach would become increasingly difficult to sustain. Ultimately, this would result in the promenade and railways being regularly affected by overtopping to the point where they could not be used safely. In developing this forward, to sustain the existing form of defence, there is likely to be the need to substantially raise the crest of the wall and potentially over the long-term increasing the level of the Promenade and continue to extend and improve the rock toe. Further into the future, this strictly linear approach to maintain the defence is likely to become increasingly unsustainable. Alternative approaches might, therefore, be needed. Examples include the potential for a full rock revetment and/or shore linked or nearshore breakwaters. There might be options to undertake major beach recharge, however, from an outline assessment undertaken by the Stevenston Beach Coastal Study, this would require significant import of sediment to provide an adequate longer-term protection to the sea wall.
Page 41
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 26 In considering potential options for delivery of HTEL to the Promenade, consideration would need to be given to the potential impact on the Steveston Beach dunes and, specifically should beach recharge be undertaken, consideration of potential wider impacts on the SSSI to the north. More immediately, there has been significant deterioration at the eastern end of the Promenade, potentially impacting on the integrity of the Promenade defence and for erosion to threaten the railway. In line with the basic principles set out for development of the CCAP, the policy for Unit 6c2.B1 would be to avoid further extension of the linear approach further into Policy Unit 6c2.B2, imposing hard control over the natural development of the dunes. This is discussed further in developing policy for the Stevenston Beach area. The above discussion of policy options is summarised below in concluding the recommended policy for PU 6c2.B1. Policy Assessment Summary A strategic summary assessment of options is set out in Table 2-3 below. Table 2-3: Policy Assessment - 6c2.B1-Sandylands Promenade Strategic Approach (policy) Description Comment Strategic Assessment Adaptative capacity, constraints and opportunity No Active Intervention (NAI) Abandon defences, no further investment Fails to deliver core objectives for the area. Not considered acceptable Major change – limited adaptive capacity, impacting on both strategic and local values and use of the area. Managed Realignment (MR) Remove defences and reconstruct on a setback line. Limited or no width for realignment without loss of strategic assets. Not considered viable Major change – limited adaptive capacity, impacting on both strategic and local values and use of the area. Improve existing (HTEL) Maintain and improve. Meets core objectives subject to further consideration of specific options. Increasing longer term (100 year) investment. Viable Further consideration of interaction with Policy Unit 6c2.B2. Long-term review. Sub- Options: Do Minimum - Short term maintenance Ongoing investment, becoming increasingly unsustainable beyond year 20. Not considered sustainable over the medium term Requires longer term planning. Rock revetment and raise Direct improvement to existing wall becoming increasingly unsustainable. Potentially not considered sustainable over the medium to longer term Potential impact on use of area. Longer- term sustainability issues.
Page 42
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 27 Breakwaters / Nearshore Rock Structures Reduces exposure to existing defences with potential to improve beach. May still require direct enhancement of the beach. Viable Secures existing defence over the medium to long term- term. Beach Nourishment Reduces exposure to existing defences. Increases sediment supply along frontage to south. Potentially viable in combination with another option. Secures existing defence over the short to medium-term. From the above, the policy over both the short and long term is for Holding the Existing Line. The assessment, however, highlights key trigger decision points in relation both to the need for considering longer term options and in terms of the interaction between this unit and management of Steveston Beach. This is considered in setting out the overall Dynamic Adaptive Pathway and Action Plan for the Local CCAP area in Section 2.4. 2.3.2.2 Consultation Initial discussion has been held with Network Rail on their long-term ambitions for the management of the defences fronting the railway. In developing the Steveston Beach Coastal Study initial discussion has been held with NatureScot and other stakeholders in considering broader issues potentially relating to the wider area. Points raised during this process have been considered in developing the initial assessment of policy options for this CCAP Policy Unit. As the Local CCAP is taken forward, further discussion would be undertaken with respect to individual elements of the Plan, building on the consultation that took place during the development of the SMP and the detailed public and stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of developing the Stevenston Beach Coastal Study.
Page 43
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 28 2.3.3 6c2.B2 - Stevenston Beach 2.3.3.1 Initial Screening of Coastal Change Adaptation Policies No Active Intervention A No Active Intervention (Do Nothing) approach would result in the continued erosion of the dunes over the western part of the frontage. In particular, this would be most pronounced at the interface with the promenade, where the slipway is already at risk of becoming outflanked. Continued erosion of the dunes in this section would result in the outflanking of the seawall and promenade and lead to the failure of the slipway and ultimately may contribute to failure of the seawall resulting in significant, possibly catastrophic impacts on the railway. The ongoing erosion of the dunes north of the Stevenston Burn would result in further exposure of the spoil heap located in the central section of the frontage. The composition of the spoil heap is currently unknown, although initial inspection has not highlighted significant issues. A No Active Intervention approach would result in the spoil heap being eroded and its contents dispersed into the environment. Under this approach, along the eastern section of the frontage, the complex pattern of erosion and accretion around the Stevenston Burn would continue. The only control to this erosion being a concrete outfall structure situated in the centre of the eastern section of dunes. Under a No Active Intervention approach it is taken that there would be no specific management of the use of the area, resulting in uncontrolled footfall through the dune system. This is already seen as being a significant issue and threat to both the ecological diversity and physical structure of the dunes. As such, this approach fails to deliver the potential for enhancement of the area. Unmanaged pedestrian pressures would contribute to erosion of the dune crest and potentially blowouts, increasing the risk of coastal erosion to the hinterland. Furthermore, it would fail to address longer term adaptation in an integrated manner. While in principle, a No Active Intervention approach is seen as allowing the general natural development of the dunes system, there are key issues that would not be addressed, specifically: • Failing to address the issues associated with the transition between the hard defence to the west, with the risk of further ad hoc management and extension of hard linear defence extending across areas of dune. • Failing to further explore and address the potential risk associated with erosion of the spoil heap. • Failing to address the issue associated with ad hoc trampling of the dune system. • Failing to address and raise awareness and potential need for ongoing adaptation over the longer term in relation to the car park and facilities associated with the important amenity and recreational use of the area. • Fail to address and consider potential opportunity for longer term management of the area of marsh. On this basis, a No Active Intervention policy is not considered to address the issues of management and the objectives for the area. Manged Realignment (MR) The Stevenston Beach Management study has examined the potential for soft engineering approaches to management of the issues identified above. This examination concluded that typical soft engineering approaches would not be appropriate due to the ongoing pressure on the frontage.
Page 44
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 29 However, in considering such approaches the coastal study did conclude that there would be significant benefit in considering ways in which the use of the area could be modified and adapted to address much of the human pressure on the dunes and natural environment. An outline assessment and management plan has been defined by the coastal study. This assessment promotes: • The need to sustain and improve the condition of the slipway at the end of the Promenade, integrating this with development of a longer term modified approach to managing the transition, both securing the Promenade defence and addressing the longer term risk to the railway due to erosion of the dunes. This would, however, require significant engineering works, with the potential to construct a small shore connected breakwater. • Focussing access from the open space and car park behind the dune along the line of the existing outfall, currently seen as being important in locally managing the dunes and influencing the position of channel of the Stevenston Burn over the foreshore. This, over time, may require further minor engineering works to reinforce the outfall route, while allowing more natural development of the dune over adjacent areas. Further management activities would be put in place, developed with stakeholders and the community, looking at how sign posting, fencing and potentially locally enhancing and rationalising the internal foot path network. Alongside this, the current approach would be to allow the spoilt heap to erode naturally, while undertaking ongoing monitoring of potential contamination. Under this MR approach, the intent would be to allow continued erosion but recognising that this would need to be kept under review, with the potential need for some form of future longer-term defence. It is recognised that a MR policy as set out above, would require hard engineering works at the slipway and in manging the transition between the Promenade and the dunes and that there may be the need for local intervention at the outfall and possibly at the spoil heap headland. However, the overall approach aims to provide the same basic outcome as intended by the SMP in minimising intervention and allowing natural adaption of the dunes. Associated with this the approach aims to set up the structure for adapting use of the area working within the constraints of future coastal change. Managed realignment, as set out above, is considered to be viable and in line with both the principles discussed in SG2023 and in best delivering the objectives for management. Hold the Existing Line (HTEL) Taking a more rigorous perspective of holding the existing line of defence, resisting the natural erosion of the dunes over the whole area is considered unnecessary, unsustainable and undesirable, failing to deliver the objectives set out for the CCAP. A such this option is not considered to be appropriate. The above discussion of policy options is summarised below in concluding the recommended policy for PU 6c2.B2. Policy Assessment Summary A strategic summary assessment of options is set out in Table 2-4 below.
Page 45
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 30 Table 2-4: Policy Assessment - 6c2.B2 Stevenston Beach Strategic Approach (policy) Description Comment Strategic Assessment Adaptative capacity, constraints and opportunity No Active Intervention (NAI) Abandon slipway and allow erosion of the dunes. No intervention to manage erosion of dunes. While notionally, allowing natural ongoing evolution of the dunes, this option would fail to address important issues including the risk to the promenade and the railway line and in failing to promote adaption of use within the area. Not considered acceptable Major change – with no view to creating a structure for adaptation. Managed Realignment (MR) Sustain the promenade slipway through intervention. Allow for the natural development of the dunes. Provides a sustainable approach to management of the transition area. Allows natural realignment of the dunes across the remainder of the frontage, while locally managing critical issues. Viable Secures critical defence over the medium to long term. Establishes a framework for ongoing adaptation. Improve and extend defences. (HTEL) Protect area against erosion. Severe impact on the natural development of the dunes. Not appropriate Longer-term sustainability. Severe impact on the natural environment. From the above, the policy over both the short and long term is for Managed Realignment. The approach to manage of the transition will need to be developed in detail in partnership and with further discussion with statutory stakeholders and the community. There remains some degree of uncertainty with respect to management of erosion to the spoil heap, this would be reviewed as part of ongoing management, based on further monitoring. Management of access points to the shoreline will subject to ongoing review with the intent to adapt and modify the approach. The overall access management will be developed as an ongoing process with stakeholders and the community, while recognising the longer term need for further adaptation to coastal change. 2.3.3.2 Consultation The Stevenston Beach Coastal Study informed a suite of consultation activities undertaken with a broad range of stakeholders. The consultation undertaken on the draft coastal study report were successful in raising awareness of the Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan and the Coastal Study itself. The vast majority of questionnaire respondents felt that the consultation had been successful at raising awareness of the issues faced at Stevenston Beach. The consultation identified a stakeholder group who had not previously been engaged with, being the equestrian community. Via the British Horse Society (BHS), and members of the public, a number of specific considerations were raised with regards to access which had not previously been considered.
Page 46
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 31 The consultation has confirmed that there is a broad level of support for access management at Stevenston Beach, supporting the conclusions of the coastal study report. A major issue raised throughout the consultation process relates to ongoing engagement. This is fully supported by NAC and how this is best undertaken will be considered in developing the overall approach to management.
Page 47
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 32 2.4 Summary of Local CCAP The overall intent of the Local CCAP recognises the need to maintain defence of the Sandylands Promenade (subject to ongoing funding arrangements) to secure important strategic and local assets and infrastructure. Notwithstanding the increasing pressure on this defence, particularly with sea level rise, it is considered that this can be undertaken in a sustainable manner. Consideration needs to be given to possible alternative forms of defence. Typically, this would need to be considered over the next 20 years as the basic ‘Do Minimum’ approach becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. Over the far long-term (100 years and beyond), continued defence may require significantly greater investment. This longer-term issue will require ongoing review, particularly as longer-term planning is undertaken as to the railway line. Over the Stevenston Beach area, the intent is to generally allow natural ongoing coastal change. As part of this, the intent is to develop, with the community and stakeholders a modified structure for managing access along and through the dunes. The aim of this is to minimise the impact on the dunes while still maintaining the important use and recreational value of the area. This approach will recognise the ongoing change to the dunes and will be adapted as part of ongoing management. The Plan recognises and discusses the important interaction between the hard defence to the Promenade and the natural dune system. The intent of the Plan is to manage this area without the encroachment of the hard defence further to the east. The Stevenston Beach Coast study sets out in outline the manner in which the transition could be managed. This approach requires further detailed development and funding, with this potentially becoming critical over the next 10 to 20 years. This approach is being discussed with Network Rail and further discussion with stakeholders. To a degree the approach to short term management of the slipway will depend on the outcome of these discussions but the intent is to sustain this important slipway as part of the emerging access plan. There are, as identified above, several key decision points in developing the Local CCAP for this area in relation to triggers for change with respect to the form of defence to the Promenade (20 years) and in relation to developing the detail with respect to the transition zone (10years). In addition, there is a degree of uncertainty with respect to the ongoing erosion rate to the dunes and the potential issues associated with management of erosion to the spoil heap. These uncertainties will, to a degree, be addressed through monitoring, recognising the CCAP will require ongoing review. In outline, the critical trigger and decisions points are highlighted in the Dynamic Adaptive Pathway set out below (Section 2.4.1.1). Based on this, an initial Action Plan has been developed as set out in Section 2.4.1.2. Within the Local CCAP two distinct but interconnected CCAP Policy Unts are identified and the recommended policy for each area is set out in Table 2-5. Table 2-5: Summary of high level CCAP policies Local CCAP Policy Unit Short term Policy Longer term Policy Notes 6c2.B1-Sandylands Promenade HTEL HTEL Need to develop medium to longer term approach. 6c2.B2 Stevenston Beach MR MR Ongoing adaption to coastal change with local intervention.
Page 48
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 33 The Local CCAP updates and provides greater clarity and detail with respect to management of individual sections of the coast as compared to the single Policy Unit defined by the SMP. In principle, however, the overall intent of management remains similar; with the intent to sustain the defence to Sandylands Promenade, while allowing a more adaptive approach to management of the Stevenston Beach frontage. In particular, the approach to management set out in the Local CCAP reinforces the need to consider mitigation measures discussed in the SMP, in: • Considering alternative options for management of the Sandylands Promenade specifically in terms of its interaction with the wider area. • Considering management of the transition between the hard defence line and the natural dunes, minimising the need to further extend the hard defences to the east. • Allowing a more adaptive approach to management of potential contamination arising from erosion of the Spoil Heap. • Allowing the natural evolution of the dunes, while encouraging development of a coherent Access Management Plan for the area. This remains in line with and addresses the key issues identified in the SMP SEA Environmental Statement. Alongside this, the CCAP has identified the potential opportunity for further habitat enhancement in providing the policy structure for revision of the Stevenston Beach Local Nature Reserve Management Plan and in identifying the potential for future change to the marsh area associated with the Stevenston Burn. 2.4.1 Coastal Change Adaptation and Action Plan The Local CCAP aims to provide a policy structure for delivery of ongoing adaptation to coastal change. As part of this, and within this high-level structure, there are clear elements that will need to be considered in detail, recognising also that there remain uncertainties principally associated with the time scale and rate of change in sea level rise. Within the Plan, therefore, there are key points in time when decisions will need to be made. Such change, will be driven by change in the physical conditions impacting on the coast and, typically, by subsequent change in condition or standards of defence and the level of risk or the natural response of the coast. These are referred to as Trigger Points. Associated with this, there are certain enabling actions which will be required to allow change to occur or further investigations or discussion which will determine the specific management response. These actions will culminate in decisions need to be made. These are referred to as Decision Points. 2.4.1.1 Dynamic Adaptive Pathway Figure 2.10 sets out the critical Trigger Points and the associated Decisions Points, setting out where and how actions and decisions will allow the Local CCAP to be developed into the future. As identified in Figure 2.10, the aim is to ensure that the necessary discussion and additional investigations are undertaken in a timely manner such that informed decisions are made in advance of when any Trigger Point is reached. The Actions associated with the Pathway are set out in the Action Plan in Section 2.4.1.2.
Page 49
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 34 Figure 2-11: Dynamic Adaptive Pathway Key:
Page 50
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 35 2.4.1.2 Action Plan The key actions taking forward the Local CCAP are set out in Table 2-6. Table 2-6: Local CCAP Action Plan Action Description Notes Timescale Year (trigger) Sandylands Promenade 1 Continue to maintain existing hard defences Secures defence over the short term, allowing consideration of longer-term options. 1 (20) 2 Highlight and raise awareness of short to medium-term risk and support preparation of option planning Ensures continuity of management across the wider area. 1 (20) 3 Raise awareness of very long-term sustainability issues. Maintain long-term awareness of possible issues in relation to review of forward planning 20 (100) Stevenston Beach and transition 4 Ongoing discussion with Network Rail and statutory stakeholders with respect to transition area. Determines further development of specific coastal management options. 1 (5 to 10) 5 Undertake further development of option(s) for transition area Detailed option study 1 (5 to 10) 6 Undertake short term measures to sustain slipway Needs to be integrated with longer-term options for management of transition. 2 (5 to 10) 7 Ongoing monitoring of spoil heap, with potential need for further investigations Longer term planning of local options for management of spoil heap. 3 (15) 8 Develop and implement improved access point associate with outfall. Improves access and management of the change. Also exemplifies potential options for general access management 1 (3) 9 Further discussion and development of access management plan with community. Progresses development of overall access plan, allowing opportunity for funding. 2 (5) Broader Area 10 ongoing monitoring Allows review of trigger points and informs decisions ongoing
Page 51
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 36 3 Local Coastal Change Management Plan 6c2.D Irvine Harbour and Irvine Beach The development of the Local CCAP is set out with an initial discussion and description of the larger CCAP area and subsequent discussion of management of the two specific policy unit areas. The final section brings this together in summarising the intent of the Local CCAP. Overall Plan area: • General Characterisation: o Description, o Identification of key features, issues and objectives. o Previous studies and current management policy, • Physical Baseline: o Geomorphology, o Tide and water levels and sea level rise o Wave climate o Sediment transport and control features, o Coastal change and flood risk Discussion of Management: • General discussion over the wider area. • Local Area (CCAP Policy Unit) assessment o Initial Screening of Policy Options o Consultation Summary of Overall Plan • Overall intent of management • Policy Summary • Coastal Change Adaptation and Action Plan o Dynamic Adaptative Pathway o Action Plan A detailed study (Irvine Beach Coastal Study – RHDHV 2025) of the Irvine Beach has recently been undertaken, providing more local detail and making specific recommendations for management. This Local CCAP 6c2.D draws strongly on this study, aiming the capture the higher level issues, providing the more strategic context in line with the SG2023 guidance. This report is provided (under separate cover) as Appendix 3A to this CCAP assessment.
Page 52
No embedded text on this page.
Page 53
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 38 hub. This reflects the importance of the area to the town of Irvine and more generally, strategically, to North Ayrshire, with the important historic links to the maritime environment. Irvine beach area comprises a relatively wide sandy beach, stretching south towards Troon and is largely backed by a dune system, although the form and behaviour of the dune and hinterland use varies along its length. The northern section of the beach has a long industrial history, previously housing both a Royal Ordnance Factory and an Iron and Chemical works. The site has largely been restored to grassed amenity lands at the northern end but signs of the past remain. Most obviously, the historic past is evidenced in this area by the massive spoil heap some 500m south of the Harbour, with the toe of the mound now becoming exposed by erosion. This large mound has been converted into a viewing point with a sculpture known as ‘the dragon.’ Further south, where the toe dune has been eroded there are further signs of the industrial heritage, with remnants of fencing and local buildings now being exposed. Further south the slightly more stable dune is backed by a golf course with features of the golf course relatively close to the back of the dune. Social and Built Environment There are properties typically to the back of the road running along the harbour area, typically developed at the same level as the quay at a level of around 4.1m OD. The Harbour is currently an active port with around 40 moorings and the road acts as an important access route to the Harbour Entrance and as access to the main car park for Irvine Beach. As identified earlier the area is an important open space forming the basis for the development of the Great Harbour Masterplan. Recent development along the Harbour has been encouraged in an effort to reinvigorate this important historical area. Signs of the success of this are evident in the repurposing of sites, including the Harbour Arts Centre. The area is therefore considered important to the general regeneration efforts as an important attractive waterfront and coastal destination for local day visitors and tourists. With the Local Development Plan supporting the development of a ‘Maritime Mile’ at the Harbourside to make the best use of the Harbourside’s unique location, heritage, and environment to create new opportunities for local people and to attract new investment into the area (Great Harbour Master Plan 2023). The main northern area of Irvine Beach provides an extremely well-used open space with a high amenity and reactional value, linked through to the important open space behind the Harbour and the integrated use and appeal of the wider area. The diverse use of the northern part of the open coast is highlighted in the Strava Global Heatmap shown in Figure 3.2. This highlights both the use of the beach and the direct hinterland to the back of the dunes. Figure 3-2: Current active use based Strava's Global Heatmap.
Page 54
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 39 Further south, the beach area and hinterland continue to be well used, although more generally for walking rather than specific static beach use. Over the southern part of the frontage the beach is well used but the hinterland is occupied by golf courses (the Royal Troon and the West Gailes). Natural and Historic Environment Two nationally designated SSSI areas are shown in Figure 3-3:. To the north is the Bogside Flats SSSI encompassing the larger area of the Garnock Estuary. It is noted that this site abuts the Harbour area. Within the area of the open coast is the West Gailes SSSI, focussing on the dunes and extending back across part of the golf courses. The dune system covered by the West Gailes SSSI is critically dependent on maintaining the continuity of sediment supply necessary in sustaining the dunes. Figure 3-3: Designated sites. In addition to the designated sites the natural environment is highly valued by users of the area. The Environmental Report, developed from the SEA and HRA as part of the SMP process did highlight the proximity of the Bogside Flats SSSI and the presence of the West Gailes SSSI, included within the Local CCAP area. With respect to the Bogside Flats SSSI the main potential impacts were considered in assessing policy relating to the management of the main estuary area, although the Environmental Report did note that design of any works along the Harbour frontage would need to consider possible influence on this SSSI, particularly during construction. The main potential impacts on the West Gailes SSSI related to change in sediment supply and, more directly in relation to any works undertaken in addressing ongoing erosion to the dune and the capacity of the dune to adapt to coastal change. The potential impact of ongoing erosion of the Spoil Heap was noted, recognising that, following further investigation, should this be an issue, this impact would need to be mitigated by some form of management but that this would also need to consider the potential impact on coastal process and sediment supply. The HRA concluded that there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on nature conservation interests, particularly those with statutory protection such as Natura sites. 3.1.1 Key Issues and Objectives Issues From the above description, the key issues are in relation to: • The potential risk to the use and regeneration of the Harbour area with sea level rise.
Page 55
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 40 • The risk to the active travel routes and open space behind the dunes and further south to potential users of the golf courses. • The ongoing erosion and coastal change to the dunes and the increased pressure on the dunes from excessive and ad hoc use of the dunes. • The ongoing erosion of the spoil heap considering potential release of contamination. • The important landscape and natural environment of the area, specifically the ongoing change to the West Gailes SSSI. Objectives for Management (including those defined by the SG2023 guidance). The following core objectives are set for management of the area, based on the issues identified above. • To minimise, as far as possible, reliance on hard coastal management • To support the natural development of the shoreline, considering opportunities for enhancing the natural function of the area, with a focus on adaptation to coastal change • To maintain defence to the Harbour area and raise awareness of any need for adaptation. • To maintain and, as far as possible, to enhance the interconnectivity across the area. • To maintain and, as far as possible, to improve access to the use and enjoyment of the important amenity and recreational value of the area (recognising the potential impacts on the natural function of the area and the need to improve access for different coastal users). • To consider and address the potential for the release of contaminated material form the spoil heap. It is noted that to some degree there may be conflict in fully achieving all objectives and that all objectives may not, therefore be achievable. 3.1.2 Previous studies and current policy There have been a number of previous studies undertaken covering this frontage, including; • Irvine to Ardrossan Coastal Study (Royal Haskoning 2005). This study principally considered the coastal processes and potential management options for the coast north of the Garnock; however it does provide some information on sediment movement and wave climate relevant to the area . • Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan (RPS, 2018): The Ayrshire SMP provides sustainable shoreline management policies for the Ayrshire frontage across three epochs; the short, medium and long term. • Dynamic Coast: The Dynamic Coast project aims to provide the strategic evidence base on the extent of coastal erosion in Scotland. This will support the Scottish Government and the Scottish Public Sector decision-making and indicate areas of highest coastal erosion risk, where a more detailed evidence base may be required. The project focuses on: o Improving evidence of coastal change. o Raising awareness about coastal erosion. o Supporting decision-makers to help Scotland’s coast adapt to future climate impacts. • Irvine Great Harbour Masterplan (NAC, 2024): the core elements of the wider masterplan include the development of the maritime mile waterfront walkway, the provision for additional Beach Drive housing and the regeneration of the coastal hinterland. • Irvine Beach Coastal Study (January 2025): In 2024 Royal HaskoningDHV were commissioned to develop a coastal study at Irvine Beach. The Scope of the Coastal Study was to develop: o A Natural Flood Risk Management study to identify suitable and implementable erosion management for the dune system at Irvine Beach, in line with the adopted Ayrshire SMP.
Page 56
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 41 o The identification and outline design of suitable measures to improve, manage and safeguard beach access, given the anticipated pressures on Irvine Beach from the effects of North Ayrshire Council’s Great Harbour Masterplan. Previous Policy and Current Management The current SMP Policy Unit 6c2.3 encompasses the whole Irvine Bay to Gailes Burn area. The plan for Policy Unit 6c2.3 is to hold the line across the short-term, medium-term and long-term. Notwithstanding this overall policy at the scale of the SMP, taking account of the potential assets at risk, specifically at the entrance to the Harbour and the important recreational use of the area, the plan identified the need to sustain the overall function of the dunes – hence the policy for hold the line. However, the SMP recognised that the dunes provided this function as a whole and recognised the need to manage erosion, promoting the use of soft engineering methods to do so. In the medium to long-term, erosion of the dune system will continue to require management. The effects of climate change will create additional pressures and dune stabilisation measures may need to be updated and extended. Flood defences on the River Irvine may need to be improved in order to provide adequate flood protection.
Page 57
No embedded text on this page.
Page 58
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 43 At the entrance to the estuaries, it has been recorded from previous studies that sediment tends to move into the estuary on the Flood tide but then it is exported and deposited as a bank (and ebb delta) in the nearshore area. There has, apparently, been little consistent or substantial change in the form and size of this nearshore bank, suggesting also that sediment might be expected to be redistributed from the bank back to the shoreline. Clearly as the shoreline has been cut back the general movement of sediment, distributes sediment along the shore. Local to the entrance channel, the shoreline both to the north and south is reported as having been areas of very local accretion. With sea level rise; with increased water depth and increased wave heights at the shore, there will be an acceleration of the general process of set back with increased rates of erosion. Within the estuary, it may be seen that the Harbour area does to some extent constrain and fix the general curve of the Irvine channel. Some slight pressure for bed erosion in this area may be expected, although there are no reports of undermining to this area. The land levels within the wider area of the Garnock Estuary are relatively low, with substantial areas only just above HAT. With sea level rise the normal tidal prism within the main estuary has the potential to increase quite sharply, potentially increasing flows through the narrow entrance channel. This could influence the development of the nearshore ebb banks, potentially giving rise to change at the foreshore. While the Irvine Beach Coastal study has identified significant local variation in the form and function of different sections of the dune, from a geomorphological perspective the most significant change in geomorphology is due to the emergence of the toe of the large waste mound tending to modify locally the behaviour of the dunes to either side. 3.2.2 Tide and water levels Table 3-1 sets out the Tide and extreme waters relevant to the area, including the projection of water levels with sea level rise. Astronomical tidal levels shown in Table 3-1 derived from POLTIPS for the nearest ‘Standard Port’ of Irvine, with present day extreme water levels based on the 2017 Boundary Conditions report. Projections of water levels with Climate Change and sea level rise are taken from the United Kingdom Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) project. In line with the guidance provided by SG2023, the UKCP18 8.5 95 percentile value for sea level rise has been used.
Page 59
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 44 Table 3-1: Water levels (baseline 2024) with change in water levels with sea level rise based on UKCP18 RCP8.5 95%’ile. Base year 2024 Water levels with Climate change sea level rise 2050 2075 2100 2125 Astronomic Tide levels Mean low water Spring (MLWS) -1.3 -1.12 -0.84 0.49 -0.08 Mean low water Neap (MLWN) -0.7 -0.52 -0.24 0.11 0.5 Mean high water Neap (MHWN) 0.90 1.08 1.36 1.71 2.1 Mean high water Spring (MHWS) 1.5 1.68 1.64 1.83 2.7 Highest Astronomic Tide 2.01 2.15 2.34 2.57 3.21 Extreme water levels 1 in 1 yr. (T1) 2.68 2.87 3.14 3.14 3.88 1 in 10 yr (T10) 3.09 3.28 3.55 3.55 4.29 1 in 50 yr (T50 3.39 3.58 3.85 3.85 4.59 1 in 100 yr (T100) 3.52 3.71 3.98 3.98 4.72 1 in 200 yr (T200) 3.65 3.84 4.11 4.46 4.85 3.2.3 Wave Climate A nearshore wave climate was determined as part of the modelling undertaken in the Irvine to Ardrossan Coastal Study (2005). The wave climate determined for a position just offshore of Saltcoats Harbour is shown in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-5. Table 3-2: Irvine wave climate. Figure 3-5: Wave Climate.
Page 60
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 45 The dominant wave sector is from the south to west, with the most frequent wave coming from the southwest but with the high waves also approaching the area from both the south southwest and west. 3.2.4 Sediment Transport The Irvine to Ardrossan Coastal Study (2005) provides a general assessment of sediment drift across Stevenston Bay under different wave conditions. This is shown in Figure 2.6. Rather than attempting to derive specific sediment transport rates, this plot indicates the variation in longshore wave energy under different wave directions. Figure 3-6: Longshore wave energy. The Figure shows significant variation in wave energy direction between Ardeer and Troon. Specific to the Local CCAP it may be seen that there is a general southerly drift from the Irvine Estuary but that for the dominant wave directions this potential for drift reduces towards the south. This would suggest that approaching West Gailes and Gailes Burn, while there is still a weak drift further south the Gailes area might typically accrete. Key Interactions Assuming that there continues to be some supply over the Irvine beach area, then the supply would continue to feed the important SSSI area to the south. As and if the spoil heap continues to emerge at the shoreline and subject to management of this, there is a potential impact that could occur. Any management in this area of the spoil heap would need to be manged to minimise and mitigate such change.
Page 61
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 46 3.2.5 Primary Control Features The primary control feature associated with the area is the Harbour Pier. At present this appears to only have a minor local function in holding beach levels directly to the south of the structure. Coastal Change Historic Past coastal change at Irvine Beach has been assessed using geo-rectified historic maps that are available to view on the National Library of Scotland’s website (Map images - National Library of Scotland (nls.uk)). Further detail on historical change can be found in the coastal management study. In the 1900s, the hinterlands were dominated by a network of Iron and Chemical works interconnected by a rail network. Through a review of historic mapping, the presence of many colliery heaps was noted and these are largely still present on site today. An analysis has been undertaken of the longer term historic change based on comparison of MHWS since 1897 together with an assessment of more recent change based on a comparison of Lidar. These results are then used to provide the baseline conditions from which to consider potential future change with increasing sea level rise. Generally there appears to have been relatively significant erosion across the whole area between 1897 and 1958, most particularly over the length south from the Harbour entrance, with the shoreline adopting a more embayed shape. This is possibly linked to the progressive training works to the Harbour entrance influencing the shoreline to the south – while the entrance channel has been managed since the early part of the 19h century, it was in the latter part of the 19th century that saw the construction of the main harbour pier. Since 1958, erosion has been significantly less with evidence of slight accretion in some areas. Caution has to be applied to these results, in part due to inherent inaccuracies in interpreting historic mapping but also in considering changes in management that may have influenced the earlier rate of change. Present day The Coastal Management Study developed an analysis based on 15 cross-shore profiles covering the main study area and extended this analysis to the south. Considering the longer term historical rates of change the general rate of erosion has been in the order of 0.4m/yr (on average between 1897 to 2010) and 0.1m/yr to 0.3m/yr (on average between 1958 to 2010). This compares to the more recent (2010 to 2022) change at the frontage to either side of the failing gabion defence to the spoil heap being in the order of 0.4m/yr. This would suggest, potentially, that: • If there had been no defence in place, the frontage as a whole might have eroded back at a rate of around 0.2m/yr (ignoring the possible influence of the presence of the spoil heap), • With the defence in place, the erosion immediately to the north and south has increased marginally to around 0.35m/yr on average. However, if the defence were maintained over the longer-term, typically, the defended area would form a slight headland in the alignment of the backshore, with the area to the north potentially being controlled to a degree with a lower rate of erosion but the area to the south still being subject to a higher rate of erosion.
Page 62
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 47 • If the defence were now removed or failed, there would be a rapid period of erosion, cutting back initially by some 5m, but that the erosion would then adjust back to the slower rate of around 0.2m/yr. The Coastal Management Study developed this analysis and projected these erosion rates onto the 15 cross-shore profiles to generate future projections. Future projections Projections of sea level rise are as shown in Table 3-3 based on UKCP18 RCP8.5 95%’ile. These values are rebased to 2024 and extended for the Lower and Baseline scenarios through to 2124. Table 3-3: Projected rates of sea level rise. Scenario SLR (m) – base year 2024 2044 Year 20 2074 Year 50 2104 Year 80 2124 Year 100 Baseline: UKCP18 RCP8.5 (95%ile) 0.13 0.46 0.87 1.17 This analysis built upon the higher-level assessment provided by Dynamic Coast. Figure 3-7 shows the indicative erosion profile assuming initially (a) that the defence to the spoil heap is maintained, with the second plot (b) showing the equivalent erosion for 2050, 2075, 2100 and 2125 if the defence was allowed to fail and no further works were implemented. Figure 3-7: projected future erosion distances. It is assumed that in the case where the spoil heap is not defended this section would still erode more slowly due to the additional volume of material and the potentially greater resistance of the material being exposed. (In line with this assumption the erosion rate for the spoil heap area is assumed to be half of the natural erosion of a dune.) Significantly, however, is the degree to which the defended frontage, if held, will be in advance of the naturally developing shoreline and this may impact or influence management of other areas.
Page 63
No embedded text on this page.
Page 64
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 49 2050 2075 2100 2125 Figure 3-9: Future Flood Risk
Page 65
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 50 3.3 Discussion of Management 3.3.1 General As identified earlier, while it is considered important that management of the two areas: the Harbour area and the open coast, are considered in an integrated manner. In terms of risk and adaptation the longer- term risks are quite different and development of future management policy can, to a degree, be considered separately. Within this Section consideration is given to the implications of management under the two baseline scenarios of No Active Intervention and With Current Management. This then forms the baseline from which to assess potential alternative options. No Active Intervention In line with the SG2023 guidance, the starting point for assessing ongoing management is an initial presumption that the coast should be allowed to evolve naturally, moving away from maintaining existing defences. In effect this presumption aims to challenge the perspective that just because defences are currently in place that they should be maintained. This aims to test the benefit that existing defences deliver alongside examining the degree to which defences might realistically be sustained over the longer term, considering also what capacity there is for adaptation to change. With respect to the Harbour, quite clearly allowing deterioration of the Harbour defences and taking no action to address the longer-term flood risk would result in loss of property and, loss of the road / operation of the important harbour. It would fail to support the efforts for regeneration and improved access to open space. In addition to the impact on the Harbour, No Active Intervention would severely constrain the use of the open coast. More specifically over the open coast, while under this No Active Intervention approach it is only to the south, in the area of the golf courses, where there might be significant loss of specific of assets. No Active Intervention would fail to address the significant impact of ad hoc trampling within the dunes resulting in the loss of both ecological function and physical damage to the integrity of the system. One of the main issues presently facing the frontage is the significant number, and size, of dune blow outs as a result of access routes to the beach. It is apparent that a number of these large blow outs are then subsequently being used as sheltered rest locations which is only aggravating the erosion. The development of the coastal hub and events space potentially adds to this risk in the future, particularly over the northern area of the beach. If not mitigated, the notable increase in foot traffic (particularly during any events) could lead to terminal erosion of the dunes. No Active intervention also fails to address the key risk of potential contamination due to erosion of the spoil heap, representing a potential health risk and a potential risk to the quality of the environment. With Present Management In terms of the Harbour area the current policy is for holding the line to support the current and future development of the area. Under present conditions this approach seems appropriate meeting the core objectives for the area.
Page 66
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 51 Over the longer term the risk of direct flooding due to sea level rise substantially increases and as part of the policy for Holding the Line there would need to consider what adaptation measures might be put in place to mitigate this risk. Over the open coast, while the policy for the area is Hold the Line, the SMP recommends that this should use soft engineering approaches. Options to control access through the dunes all fall under the general dune restoration approach (noted within SEPA’s Natural Flood Management Handbook). It is envisaged that a combination of fencing, thatching and planting would be utilised to control the movement of people and encourage the use of designated access points. A review against the masterplan would be required to ensure linkage with the hinterlands and ensure efficient access routes are designed that minimise the risk of people creating their own desire lines. It is thought that parallel access routes within the dune themselves could be reinforced by boardwalks to prevent trampling. The alignment of these would be designed such that it recognises the want for the dune to roll back in response to sea level rise. As such the current policy (as qualified by the SMP) is seen as being a sensible way ahead over the northern section of the open coast. This does however raise the issues both in relation to addressing the potential risk of contamination form erosion of the spoil heap and further south in with respect to longer- term management of erosion to the dunes in front of the golf courses. This overall assessment of management is taken forward in considering setting specific policy for the two CCAP Policy Units.
Page 67
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 52 3.3.2 6c2.D1 - Irvine Harbour 3.3.2.1 Initial Screening of Coastal Change Adaptation Policies No Active Intervention A No Active Intervention (Do Nothing) approach would result in the continued degradation of the harbour structures, including quay walls and pontoons. This would ultimately lead to the condition of the harbour deteriorating to the point where it was unsafe to use. In the medium to long term, sea level rise would result in increased rates of overtopping and the harbour structures would deteriorate to the point where they failed. Overtopping and eventual failure of the structures would render the Irvine Harbour frontage unsustainable, there would be an associated increased flood risk to the highway, and residential and commercial property. Failure of the harbour structures would result in the wider area along Harbour Street becoming unusable. Locally, there would be a significant negative economic impact on the town associated with the loss of the harbour. This would also contribute to regional and national losses. Furthermore, the important opportunity for place development and regeneration would be lost. A No Active Intervention approach is not considered to be an acceptable approach due to these impacts. Managed Realignment (MR) Due to the integral use of the harbour associated with the line of defence there is no realistic position for realignment of the defence. Notwithstanding this fundamental constraint, in looking at future management and mitigation for increased flood risk, there may be scope for incorporating some form of future flood defence within any landscape design of the Harbour waterfront. This, however, would be better defined as future adaptation associated with Holding the Existing Line. The Managed Realignment is not considered to be realistically achievable. Hold the Existing Line (HTEL) Under this policy option the aim would be to maintain the current Harbour Quay and other defences including the Harbour Pier. Currently, there is no significant barrier to achieving this. As noted above, there would be the need to mitigate the potential increased flood risk and this could be achieved by a basic approach in raising the current level of the quay and associated defences. Equally and possibly more in keeping with the aim to maintain an active harbour and to improve the character and visual aspect of the area, consideration would need to be given to future flood risk and formal / informal flood defences with any landscape works being undertaken. Typically, the key trigger for improvement might in around 50 years’ time, However, awareness of this longer term risk would allow the opportunity to be taken for improvement at any stage prior to this. Policy Summary Assessment A strategic assessment of options is set out in Table 3-4 below.
Page 68
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 53 Table 3-4: Policy Assessment - 6c2.D1 - Irvine Harbour Strategic Approach (policy) Description Comment Strategic Assessment Adaptative capacity, constraints and opportunity Do Nothing (DN) Abandon harbour and defences, no further investment. Substantial impact on local and regional economy with loss of opportunity for regeneration. Not considered acceptable Major change – limited adaptive capacity Managed Realignment (MR) Remove defences and reconstruct on a setback line. No width to establish a new defence alignment. Not considered realistically achievable No scope for adaptation Improve existing (HTEL) Maintain and improve. Significant ongoing maintenance Viable Need for longer term adaptation and mitigation of flood risk. Sub-options: Raise along quay Direct improvement to quay walls with potential need for further future works. Viable Potential impact on use of area. Longer-term sustainability issues constraining future adaptation. Landscaped flood defence Secures defences and could reduce the need for raising defences the front face maintaining operation of the Harbour. Requires consideration as part of general improvements. Viable Secures existing defence over the long term. From the above, the policy over both the short and long term is for Holding the Existing Line. The assessment highlights the need to consider the longer-term risk within future improvement more generally to the area. 3.3.2.2 Consultation The above assessment of policy confirms the previous policy defined by the SMP. No further detailed consultation has been undertaken on the proposed CCAP policy at this stage. In taking forward the CCAP there would be further consultation undertaken on specific elements of the CCAP.
Page 69
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 54 3.3.3 6c2.D2 - Irvine Beach to Gailes Burn 3.3.3.1 Initial Screening of Coastal Change Adaptation Policies No Active Intervention A No Active Intervention (Do Nothing) approach would result in the ongoing erosion of the dunes throughout the frontage. Even further south, in the Gailes area, where currently it is reported that the dunes remain relatively stable, with sea level rise, there would be a progressive roll back of the dunes. This issue would be aggravated over the northern section of the frontage by the intensity of use. With no efforts being taken to manage this pressure there would be further damage to the ecological function and physical integrity of the dunes. More immediately, the gabion baskets at the defended spoil heap are already in a poor condition with a potential effective residual life in the order of 5 to 10 years. They would continue to break up and would cease to defend the toe of the spoil heap resulting in erosion of the spoil. It is not currently known to what degree the contents of this spoil heap pose a significant risk. Under this policy, regardless of the potential risk posed by the spoil, spoil would be dispersed on the beach and into the environment. This requires further investigations. Without first determining the nature of the spoil heap, A No Active Intervention approach is not considered to be an acceptable approach due to the risk of contaminated spoil entering the environment. Where the spoil is demonstrated to be non-contaminated, then a No Active Intervention approach could be considered. However, it is recognised that even under this approach, some degree of access management is likely to be required in order to manage localised erosional pressures associated with high levels of footfall. This is particularly critical given the ambitions of the Irvine Great Harbour Masterplan which anticipates that visitor numbers will increase. Manged Realignment (MR) Given the issues identified above, it is almost certain that some form of management would be required, although the approach to management would be different over different sections of the area. Over the northern section of Irine Beach, under this option the focus of management would be in managing the intense pedestrian pressure. Typically this would take the form formalising specific access points, co-ordinating this with travel route and use of the open area behind the dunes. This is considered in more detail in the Irvine Beach Coastal Study. As highlighted in the study report, there would need to be consideration of whether such access points might require local physical control or whether it would be more appropriate to allow more regular adjustment in response to coastal change. Whichever choice is made, the aim would be to work within the natural coastal change rather than acting to resist such change. This general approach would extend over the dunes further to the south ensuring the opportunity is provided for natural dune restoration while maintaining selected access points for all coastal users. Over the southern section of the whole area, further detailed consideration would need to be given to the possible need for long-term adaptation in the use of the two major golf courses, looking to sustain the natural protection provided by the dunes by creating greater width within the system. This takes a more realistic approach to management given difficulty of sustaining a hard approach to defence within a naturally changing backshore.
Page 70
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 55 The spoil heap poses a more difficult challenge. Subject to critical further investigation into the nature of material within the spoil heap and the degree of risk this might pose a range of options for management have been considered by the Irvine Beach Coastal Study. While locally this might be better described in terms of policy as Hold the Existing Line, within the wider context of management of the whole policy unit it is still considered appropriate to consider this under this assessment of a broader Managed Realignment approach. Other options, identified include: • Digging out and disposing of contaminated material. This option would have a very large and ongoing cost and was not considered sensible. • A staged approach to slow rates erosion, potentially affecting some areas of erosion but limiting this and more slowing introducing control structures. All these options would need to be developed further in detail, specifically considering the potential wider scale impact on coastal processes but also integrating any approach to sustain travel routes along the shore and hinterland. In summary, under this approach to management, the underpinning principle for the existing dunes would be to allow natural change to occur, looking to manage and develop approaches for adaptation and management of use. At the spoil heap, the same underlying principle would apply but recognising that depending on nature of material within the spoil heap there might be the need for hard defence. Overall, Managed Realignment is considered to correctly describe, as above, an approach that would be sustainable and would work within the underlying objective set out for a CCAP. Hold the Existing Line (HTEL) While as set out above, subject to further investigation of the nature of the spoil heap, there could be the need to hold the existing defence to the spoil heap, a general policy of holding the overall dune line would be consider unsustainable, unaffordable and unacceptable in relation to the CCAP objectives. This policy option is not considered viable. Policy Assessment Summary A strategic summary assessment of options is set out in Table 3-5 below. Table 3-5: Policy Assessment - 6c2.D2 Irvine Beach to Gailes Burn Strategic Approach (policy) Description Comment Strategic Assessment Adaptative capacity, constraints and opportunity No Active Intervention (NAI) No interventions to manage erosion of dunes. Substantial impact on existing environment, including erosion of potentially contaminated spoil heap. Not considered acceptable Major change – limited adaptive capacity Managed Realignment (MR) Manage change while minimising physical intervention Allow for the natural realignment of the dunes. Specific options to be considered for the spoil heap. Viable and appropriate Capacity to adapt to change.
Page 71
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 56 Improve existing (HTEL) Maintain, improve and extend linear defence Major impact on the natural environment. Loss of beach and increasing cost. Unacceptable Would fail to engender consideration of adaptation. 3.3.3.2 Consultation The Irvine Beach Coastal Study informed a suite of consultation activities undertaken with a broad range of stakeholders. The consultation undertaken on the draft coastal study report has been successful in raising awareness of the Ayrshire Shoreline Management Plan and the Coastal Study itself. The vast majority of questionnaire respondents felt that the consultation had been successful at raising awareness of the issues faced at Irvine Beach. The consultation identified a stakeholder group who had not previously been engaged with which was the equestrian community. Via the British Horse Society, and members of the public, a number of specific considerations were raised with regards to access which had not previously been considered. The consultation confirmed that there is a broad level of support for access management at Irvine Beach, supporting the conclusions of the draft coastal study report but that this needs to be developed further. In addition, the consultation has elicited useful responses on specific local issues, which are now recorded and will be considered in ongoing development of management approaches. Furthermore, several comments were made relating to broadscale issues and these have been considered in developing the Local CCAP. With regards to management of the existing (current) defences, there was no objection to the recommendations outlined within the draft coastal study report, recognising that options would be developed further following investigation of the nature of material within the spoil heap . A major issue raised throughout the consultation process relating to ongoing engagement. This is fully supported by NAC and how this is best undertaken will be considered in developing the overall approach to management. It is noted that consultation focused on the northern (Irvine Beach) beach area. While the revised headline policy for MR differs from the previous SMP headland policy of HTL, in practice the intent for considering soft engineering approaches, expressed by the SMP, has been clarified and is considered to be better captured by the proposed policy on MR.
Page 72
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 57 3.4 Summary of Local CCAP The Local CCAP has sub-divided the coast into two policy units with the aim to provide better clarity in considering CCAP policy. While these two units have very different characteristic and therefore require different polices, the Units have been grouped under one Local CCAP to reflect and raise awareness that there are significant inter dependencies, in relation to overall use and access along the coast. Overall the intent of the Local CCAP is to maintain and as required manage access along and through the area, sustaining the specific character and regeneration opportunities for the Harbour, while sustaining the important natural development of the open coast. In detail for the Harbour it is consider sustainable to maintain the defence and use of the area. The CCAP raises the awareness of potential longer-term increased flood risk with sea level rise, encouraging consideration of address this future risk in developing detailed plans for the area. The physical trigger point for adaptation might not occur for 50 years. However, increasing awareness of this risk potentially allows his to be integrated in current decision making. With respect to the open coast Unit, it is proposed that the CCAP policy is revised to one of Managed Realignment better reflecting and clarifying the implications of the previous caveated policy set by the SMP. The CCAP policy for the open coast Unit is now defined as Managed Realignment. However, in detail, this might need to be develop in different ways across different sections of the coast. Specifically: Over the northern Irvine Beach area the intent is to develop in detail a management plan for managing the intense pressure form use on the dunes. Underpinning this is the intent to minimise intervention at the dune face, allowing for further adaptation of the access plan in response to coastal change. Over the critical spoil heap frontage, the final approach to management would need to be determined based on further investigation of the nature of material contained within the spoil heap. Again, the underlying intent is to allow, as far as possible and permissible, the natural development at the shoreline. However, this recognises that there may need to be hard engineering works in this area to address potential risks of release of contaminated material. Further south, particularly over the area of the golf course, the overall aim is to allow the natural development and roll back of the dunes, maintaining the important integrity of the back shore area and supporting the management intent set out in the SSSI designation. This recognises that there may, therefore, be the need for some adaptation of the golf courses. This need to be considered further working with the golf course to develop in detail a realistic and sustainable long term plan for management. Table 3-6: Summary of high level CCAP policies Local CCAP Policy Unit Short term Policy Longer term Policy Notes 6c2.D1-Irvine Harbour HTEL HTEL Consideration of long-term adaptation. 6c2.D2 Irvine Beach to Gailes Burn MR MR Ongoing adaption to coastal change with local intervention and management plans.
Page 73
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 58 The Local CCAP updates and provides greater clarity and detail with respect to management of individual sections of the coast as compared to the single Policy Unit defined by the SMP. In principle, however, the overall intent of management remains similar; with the intent to sustain the defence to the Harbour frontage, while allowing a more adaptive approach to management of the Irvine Beach frontage. In particular, the approach to management set out in the Local CCAP reinforces the need to consider mitigation measures discussed in the SMP. • With respect to the Harbour, the Local CCAP recognises the need to address the increased flood risk with sea level rise. In examining this, two different options are identified. In developing these options, in addition to considering the potential impact on the landscape and use of the area, there would need to be consideration of how the potential impact on the Bogside Flats SSSI might be minimised and mitigated. • Further investigation is required into the nature of material contained within the Spoil Heap and the potential impact that ongoing erosion of the Spoil Heap would have on the marine environment. This would be taken forward through development of the Local CCAP. • Associated with the above, the Local CCAP identifies the need to consider and mitigate the potential influence any management would have on sediment supply along the shoreline, with particular reference the potential impacts on the West Gailes SSSI. • More generally, the overall intent to allow ongoing natural development of the dunes would maintain the pattern of sediment movement along the frontage minimising the impact on the West Gailes SSSI. • The Local CCAP recommends the development of specific management plans for adaptation of the West Gailes area. This remains in line with and addresses the key issues identified in the SMP SEA Environmental Statement. Furthermore, developing the Access Management Plan aims to balance the need to maintain important and values use of the open coast alongside sustaining a healthy dune system. 3.4.1 Coastal Change Adaptation and Action Plan The Local CCAP aims to provide a policy structure for delivery of ongoing adaptation to coastal change. As part of this, and within this high-level structure, there are clear elements that will need to be considered in detail, recognising also that there remain uncertainties principally associated with the time scale and rate of change in sea level rise, alongside the present uncertainty associated with the nature of material contained within the Spoil Heap. Within the Plan, therefore, there are key points in time when decisions will need to be made. Such change, will be driven by change in the physical conditions impacting on the coast and, typically, by subsequent change in condition or standards of defence and the level of risk or the natural response of the coast. These are referred to as Trigger Points. Associated with this, there are certain enabling actions which will be required to allow change to occur or further investigations or discussion which will determine the specific management response. These actions will culminate in decisions needing to be made. These are referred to as Decision Points. 3.4.1.1 Dynamic Adaptive Pathway Figure 3.9 sets out the critical Trigger Points and the associated Decisions Points, setting out where and how actions and decisions will allow the Local CCAP to be developed into the future.
Page 74
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 59 Figure 3-10: Dynamic Adaptive Pathway. KEY
Page 75
Project related 4 April 2025 NORTH AYRSHIRE CCAP PC5329-RHD-XX-XX-RP-X-1001 60 As identified in Figure 3.9, the aim is to ensure that the necessary discussion and additional investigations are undertaken in a timely manner such that informed decisions are made in advance of when any Trigger Point is reached. The Actions associated with the Pathway are set out in the Action Plan in Section 3.4.1.2. 3.4.1.2 Action Plan The key actions taking forward the Local CCAP are set out in Table 3-7. Table 3-7: Local CCAP Action Plan Action Description Notes Timescale Year (trigger) Irvine Harbour 1 Continue to maintain harbour defences Secures defence over the short to medium term, allowing consideration of longer-term options. 1 (50) 2 Highlight and raise awareness of longer-term flood risk Allows integration of potential future risk withing current planning 1 (50) Irvine Beach and Spoil Heap 3 Detailed investigation of potential contamination Determines further development of specific coastal management options. 1 (5 to 10) 4 Develop options for coastal management to Spoil Heap. Detailed option study 3 (5 to 10) 5 Detailed development of access plan. Working with partners to agree position of access points and approach to ongoing management Needs to take account of access management along spoil heap area. 3 (5) Broader Area 6 Raise awareness of potential need for adaptation to golf course frontages Establish initial contact and discuss how future planning may be facilitated. 1 (20) 7 Ongoing monitoring Allows review of trigger points and informs decisions ongoing
Page 76
North Ayrshire Council Coastal Change Adaptation Plan Summary Document DRAFT
Page 77
Introduction to Coastal Change Adaptation Plans (CCAP) Scottish Government produced interim guidance (SG2023) for development of Coastal Change Adaptation Plans (CCAP) in February 2023. This national initiative recognises the ongoing and constant nature of change at the coast, considering how we will need to adapt to that change in a sustainable manner; considering how we currently use and value the coast but also looking forward as to how we may need to respond and adapt to the increased rate of change due to Climate Change and, in particular, sea level rise. The guidance notes that over the last thirty years sea level across Scotland has risen between two and three times faster than over the previous 100 years, with mean sea level anticipated to rise by between 0.30-1.16 m by 2100. This will, in many areas, result in increased risk of flooding and increased pressure on the coast for erosion. While it is accepted that there are some uncertainties both in relation to the actual rate and timescale over which sea level rise will occur and uncertainties over how the coast will respond to such change, and while there is still the need to explore further our capacity for change, the guidance emphasises the need to start this process now: • Raising the awareness of the challenges with individuals, communities, businesses and local organisations, allowing people to plan for change, working within the broader structure provided by the CCAP to shape their future. • Informing Local Development Plans as to future risk, identifying where future coastal development should and should not be located. • Helping to safeguard important and valued natural features, including those that can protect the coast, alongside looking for opportunities for enhancing biodiversity and maintaining the mosaic of interconnected habitats. • Taking a placemaking approach to deliver, as far as possible, multiple benefits across the whole range of interest associated with the coastal zone. Critically, the guidance recognises the ongoing nature of coastal management. The aim is to develop CCAPs based on the information already collated within Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) and building on information developed through further local studies alongside national data sets such as provided by Dynamic Coast. However, as part of the CCAP process, the aim is to critically examine how we currently manage the coast, with the opportunity to challenge current practice from a longer-term, broader scale perspective, ensuring that future challenges are identified and that short term decisions do not constrain future opportunities. National Guidance - Principles and Objectives The national guidance does not prescribe exactly how local authorities should develop their Coastal Change Adaptation Plans (CCAP). Instead, it provides guidance as to what they should seek to achieve and how it might be delivered. Importantly, the national guidance recognises that “one size does not fit all”, and the guidance recognises the need to maintain flexibility for appropriate local and regional CCAP delivery structures to emerge, recognising that CCAPs need to reflect the complexity of local areas. However, the guidance sets clear principles and objectives that the CCAP should work within. Core Principles. • to create a vision for well-adapted and resilient management, properly integrated into other policies by taking a more land use planning approach, avoiding locking-in future generations to unsustainable actions, considering that sea levels are expected to continue to rise well beyond the end of this century; DRAFT
Page 78
• to seek opportunities to support and regenerate communities and address inequalities. In particular, policy should anticipate that changes to property protection and property values will increasingly come into focus as adaptation pathways are developed; and • to deliver multiple benefits (for example economic, environmental or amenity enhancements), and to promote sustainable infrastructure and work to preserve natural features and ecosystems. Key Objectives In line with the core principles the following overall objectives of the CCAP are: • To promote the resilience of our natural coastline and begin the process of adaptation to climate change; • To set out a process for a proactive approach to coastal adaptation planning that will maximise opportunities and minimise risk from climate change impacts; • To ensure our collective coastal adaptation journey starts now; and • To support local authorities to begin the process. Approach to developing North Ayrshire’s CCAP The North Ayrshire coastline covers a length of some 150km of shoreline, including areas of the mainland alongside the principal islands of Great Cumbrae and Arran. Within this length of coast, there is large variation in the coastal character. In some areas such as the major towns there are significant lengths of man-made protection. In many other areas there are small settlements alongside many small ports and local harbours, all set within broader areas of natural shoreline. There is, therefore, a clear need to adapt the level of detail provided by the CCAP to reflect the local nature of the coastline in any location and to maintain relevance to future management of specific areas. The current SMP (RPS 2018) provides the initial background and structure in identifying the broader interdependencies throughout the area, this provides the opportunity to focus in more detail on individual areas. To this end, the approach being taken to the development of the North Ayrshire CCAP is to develop a series of Local CCAPs. It is recognised that this process will be ongoing but it does also allow focus on areas where further information and study has been carried out. The intent is to develop these Local CCAPs in a consistent format around the whole coastline, ultimately allowing collation of these Local CCAPs as one CCAP for North Ayrshire. This Document This document sets out the overall approach being taken to the development of the North Ayrshire CCAP, as discussed above. As Local CCAPs are developed additional sections will be added providing a summary and record of the how policy and Plans are being developed covering the whole coastline. As Local CCAPs are developed the conclusions from the SMP will be reviewed and updated with the intent that these summary documents will replace the SMP policy for each area. North Ayrshire Council have taken the opportunity provided by having undertaken two detailed local studies to start this process and to develop Local CCAPs covering these areas. The two areas, so far included are for: • The Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach (Local CCAP 6c2.B), and • Irvine Harbour to Gailes Burn (Local CCAP 6c2.D) DRAFT
Page 79
The Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach (Local CCAP 6c2.B) Summary Document DRAFT
Page 80
Context General description The Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach, covering some 2.5km of coastline, is formed as an effectively artificial embayment formed by the historic development of the southern Saltcoats Harbour arm, constructed out over a natural rock outcrop, and Stevenston Point, which was formed over the last century by tipping of mining waste. The area is covered by two relatively distinct, although interconnected, sections. The Sandylands Promenade, comprises a major sea wall protecting the railway line and providing defence to lower lying land behind. The wall is fronted by a low intertidal foreshore with a thin veneer of sand. Currently, the wall and promenade suffer significant overtopping during major storm events. The Stevenston Beach and Dunes, comprises an area of natural dunes extending back into an area of important open space. The dunes and open space are included with areas designated as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and a Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS) highlighting the important ecological value associated with the area. The dunes are currently eroding limiting the opportunity for dune restoration. There is also significant human trampling causing damage to the dunes. As the dunes have eroded, this has exposed the toe of an old mining waste spoil heap and this is eroding. The area is cut by the Stevenston Burn, with the Burn running back into the town of Stevenston. The channel of the Burn across the foreshore has been subject of significant change, influencing and being influenced by coastal change. A critical feature of the area is the transition between the hard defence along the promenade and the natural section of dunes, with an increasing challenge to maintaing an important slipway and in managing the transition between the two sections of the coast. The SMP context The SMP (2018) defined the area within the general sub- cell 6c2, with a further division of the wider area into four SMP Policy Units. The Local CCAP area is contained within SMP Policy Unit 6c2.1. The general policy for this unit is for Holding the Line (HTL) over the three epochs considered by the SMP. However, there was an important caveat that, with respect to Stevenston Beach, the intent was to manage erosion of the dunes using soft engineering approaches. In reviewing the SMP, as apart of developing the Local CCAP, it has been agreed that the SMP Policy Unit should be further sub-divided into two CCAP Zones: • 6c2.A, covering Ardrossan and Saltcoats Harbour. • 6c2.B, covering this Local CCAP area of the Sandylands Promenade and Stevenston Beach This retains the ability to consider the important broader scale interaction across the whole Local CCAP area, with the definition of two CCAP Policy Units 6c2.B1 and 6c2.B2 reflecting the local characteristics of each local area. SMP Sub-cells and Policy Units. DRAFT
Page 81
Coastal Change The whole area has been subject to historical erosion, with, where the frontage has been defended along the promenade, a loss of the natural beach. The artificial development of the Stevenston Point has allowed some retention of sediment over the foreshore resulting lower rates of erosion of the dunes at the eastern end. The construction of the defence along the Promenade has reduced the supply of sediment to the dunes and increased erosion has occurred to the dunes immediately to the east of the Promenade. As the dune line has eroded, this has exposed the toe of the historic Spoil Heap and this is now acting to partially control the alignment of the frontage. With sea level rise the rate of erosion to the dunes will increase. The predicted erosion distances over the next 100 years are shown in the images below. These erosion lines are based on the UKCP18 8.5 (95 percentile) sea level rise scenario, as recommended in the national guidance for CCAPs. Currently, there is relatively low flood risk within the area, although the Promenade and Railway are subject to severe wave overtopping during major storms. With sea level rise, larger areas will be at potential risk. This change is shown in comparing the current and future (2100) relative land levels with respect to coastal water levels. The risk of overtopping of the Promenade wall will similarly increase. Management Issues • The risk to the railway line and the hinterland area inland of the railway. • The potential increased flood risk to property within Saltcoats and Stevenston. • The potential longer-term risk to the railway line due failure of the defence and erosion of the dunes to the east. • The risk to the active travel route behind the dunes and along the Promenade. • The ongoing erosion and coastal change to the dunes and the potential impact on and impact of the recreational use of the area. • The need to maintain the open space use of the area. • The management of the transition between the hard defence of the Promenade and the natural dunes. • The ongoing erosion of the spoil heap considering potential release of contamination alongside considering the impact on use and coastal change. • The important landscape and natural environment of the area. Predicted erosion over the eastern and western sections of Stevenston Beach in 20, 50, 80 and 100 years. Present day flood risk areas Potential flood risk areas by 2100 DRAFT
Page 82
Policy Update The overall intent of the Local CCAP recognises the need to maintain defence of the Sandylands Promenade (subject to ongoing funding arrangements) to secure important strategic and local assets and infrastructure. Notwithstanding the increasing pressure on this defence, particularly with sea level rise, it is considered that this can be undertaken in a sustainable manner. Consideration needs to be given to possible alternative forms of defence. Typically, this would need to be considered over the next 20 years as the basic ‘Do Minimum’ approach becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. Over the far long-term (100 years and beyond), continued defence may require significantly greater investment. This longer-term issue will require ongoing review, particularly as longer-term planning is undertaken in relation to the railway line. Over the Stevenston Beach area, the intent is to generally allow natural ongoing coastal change. As part of this, the intent is to develop, with the community and stakeholders a modified structure for managing access along and through the dunes. The aim of this is to minimise the impact on the dunes while still maintaining the important use and recreational value of the area. This approach will recognise the ongoing change to the dunes and will be adapted as part of ongoing management. The Plan recognises and discusses the important interaction between the hard defence to the Promenade and the natural dune system. The intent of the Plan is to manage this area without the encroachment of the hard defence further to the east. The specific polices defined by the Local CCAP are set out in the table below. Local CCAP Policy Unit Short term Policy Longer term Policy Notes 6c2.B1-Sandylands Promenade HTEL HTEL Need to develop medium to longer term approach. 6c2.B2 Stevenston Beach MR MR Ongoing adaption to coastal change with local intervention. The Local CCAP updates and provides greater clarity and detail with respect to management of individual sections of the coast as compared to the single Policy Unit defined by the SMP. The approach to management, set out in the Local CCAP, reinforces the need to consider mitigation measures discussed in the SMP, in: • Considering alternative options for management of the Sandylands Promenade specifically in terms of its interaction with the wider area. • Considering management of the transition between the hard defence line and the natural dunes, minimising the need to further extend the hard defences to the east. • Allowing a more adaptive approach to management of potential contamination arising from erosion of the Spoil Heap. • Allowing the natural evolution of the dunes, while encouraging development of a coherent Access Management Plan for the area. Alongside this, the CCAP has identified the potential opportunity for further habitat enhancement in providing the policy structure for revision of the Stevenston Beach Local Nature Reserve Management Plan and in identifying the potential for future change to the marsh area associated with the Stevenston Burn. DRAFT
Page 83
Critical Decisions The following Dynamic Adaptive Pathway diagram highlights where critical decisions will be needed in developing the CCAP into the future. The need for decisions are drive by anticipated Trigger Points relating to management of defences and risk or in anticipation of natural coastal change. Action Plan The following actions are required in delivery of the Local CCAP . Action Description Notes Timescale Year (trigger) Sandylands Promenade 1 Continue to maintain existing hard defences Secures defence over the short term, allowing consideration of longer-term options. 1 (20) 2 Highlight and raise awareness of short to medium-term risk and support preparation of option planning Ensures continuity of management across the wider area. 1 (20) 3 Raise awareness of very long-term sustainability issues. Maintain long-term awareness of possible issues in relation to review of forward planning 20 (100) Stevenston Beach and transition 4 Ongoing discussion with Network Rail and statutory stakeholders with respect to transition area. Determines further development of specific coastal management options. 1 (5 to 10) 5 Undertake further development of option(s) for transition area Detailed option study 1 (5 to 10) 6 Undertake short term measures to sustain slipway Needs to be integrated with longer-term options for management of transition. 2 (5 to 10) 7 Ongoing monitoring of spoil heap, with potential need for further investigations Longer term planning of local options for management of spoil heap. 3 (15) 8 Develop and implement improved access point associate with outfall. Improves access and management of the change. Also exemplifies potential options for general access management 1 (3) 9 Further discussion and development of access management plan with community. Progresses development of overall access plan, allowing opportunity for funding. 2 (5) Broader Area 10 ongoing monitoring Allows review of trigger points and informs decisions ongoing DRAFT
Page 84
Irvine Harbour to Gailes Burn (Local CCAP 6c2.D) Summary Document DRAFT
Page 85
Context General description The Local CCAP area includes two quite distinct areas covering Irvine Harbour, within and running along the southern side of the Irvine/ Garnock Estuary and running out to the Harbour entrance structures, and Irvine Beach extending through from the Harbour Pier to Gailes Burn. The total length of the area is around 6km, with around 4.5km of that being the main open beach section. The Harbour comprises a series of vertical quay walls, with property built to the quay at the upstream end but, more generally, with a road running directly behind the quay with properties, car parks and open ground further inland. North Ayrshire Council has aspirations to further enhance the Harbourside area and have developed a Great Harbour Masterplan. The masterplan includes the development of the maritime mile waterfront walkway and three activity hubs Irvine beach area comprises a relatively wide sandy beach, stretching south towards Troon and is largely backed by a dune system, although the form and behaviour of the dune and hinterland use varies along its length. The northern section of the beach has a long industrial history, and most obviously, the historic past is evidenced in this area by the massive spoil heap some 500m south of the Harbour, with the toe of the mound now becoming exposed by erosion. Further south, where the toe dune has been eroded there are further signs of the industrial heritage, with remnants of fencing and local buildings now being exposed. Beyond this area the slightly more stable dune is backed by golf courses with features of the golf course relatively close to the back of the dune. Within the area of the open coast is the West Gailes SSSI, focussing on the dunes and extending back across part of the golf courses. A further SSSI, the Bogside Flats SSSI, abuts the Harbour but principally extends back to encompass the larger area of the Garnock Estuary. The main northern area of Irvine Beach provides an extremely well-used open space with a high amenity and reactional value, linked through to the important open space behind the Harbour and the integrated use and appeal of the wider area. The SMP context The SMP (2018) defined the area within the general sub- cell 6c2, with a further division of the wider area into four SMP Policy Units. The Local CCAP area is contained within SMP Policy Unit 6c2.3. The general policy for this unit is for Holding the Line (HTL) over the three epochs considered by the SMP. However, there was an important caveat that, with respect to Irvine Beach, the intent was to manage erosion of the dunes using soft engineering approaches. In reviewing the SMP, as apart of developing the Local CCAP, the extent of this SMP Policy Unit should be retained as: • 6c2.D, covering Irvine Harbour to Gailes Burn. However, this Local CCAP area is now considered as two CCAP Policy Units: 6c2.D1 (Irvine Harbour) and 6c2.D2 (Irvine Beach) reflecting the local characteristics of each local area. SMP Sub-cells and Policy Units. DRAFT
Page 86
Coastal Change While the Harbour does to some extent constrain and fix the general curve of the Irvine channel. Some slight pressure for bed erosion in this area may be expected, although there are no reports of undermining to this area. Currently structures along the harbour and at the entrance have been suitably maintained. While, in particular, the Harbour entrance structures do impose significant control on the natural change at the mouth of the estuary, the maintaining structures are considered to be sustainable. Generally, there has been long-term persistent erosion along much of the open coast, with the dunes remaining slightly more stable towards the West Gailes area. Typically, over the northern section, recent erosion has been in the order of 0.4m/yr. This erosion has exposed the toe of the major Spoil Heap which has been protected by gabion baskets which are now failing. An assessment of future erosion distances is shown in the figure below. Currently there is little direct flood risk across the area. With sea level rise, some areas will be at increased potential risk, particularly in the area of the Harbour. This change is shown in comparing the current and future (2100) relative land levels with respect to coastal water levels. Management Issues • The potential risk to the use and regeneration of the Harbour area with sea level rise. • The risk to the active travel routes and open space behind the dunes and further south to potential users of the golf courses. • The ongoing erosion and coastal change to the dunes and the increased pressure on the dunes from excessive and ad hoc use of the dunes. • The ongoing erosion of the spoil heap considering potential release of contamination. • The important landscape and natural environment of the area, specifically the ongoing change to the West Gailes SSSI. Indicative erosion over the open coast in years 20, 50, 80 and 100. Present day potential flood risk 2100 potential flood risk DRAFT
Page 87
Policy Update The Local CCAP has sub-divided the coast into two policy units with the aim to provide better clarity in considering CCAP policy. While these two units have very different characteristic and therefore require different polices, the Units have been grouped under one Local CCAP to reflect and raise awareness that there are significant inter dependencies, in relation to overall use and access along the coast. The intent of the Local CCAP is to maintain the use of the Harbour area sustaining the specific character and regeneration opportunities. The CCAP raises the awareness of potential longer-term increased flood risk with sea level rise, encouraging consideration of addressing this future risk in developing detailed plans for the area. The physical trigger point for adaptation might not occur for 50 years. With respect to the open coast Unit, it is proposed that the CCAP policy is revised to one of Managed Realignment better reflecting and clarifying the implications of the previous caveated policy set by the SMP, with the intent to sustain as far as possible the natural development of the dunes. Over the northern Irvine Beach this require development of an Access Management Plan. Underpinning this Plan the intent to minimise intervention at the dune face. Over the critical spoil heap frontage, the final approach to management would need to be determined based on further investigation of the nature of material contained within the spoil heap. The underlying intent is to allow, as far as possible and permissible, the natural development at the shoreline. However, this recognises that there may need to be hard engineering works. Further south, the overall aim is to allow the natural development and roll back of the dunes, supporting the management intent set out in the SSSI designation. This recognises that there may, therefore, be the need for some adaptation of the golf courses. Local CCAP Policy Unit Short term Policy Longer term Policy Notes 6c2.D1-Irvine Harbour HTEL HTEL Consideration of long-term adaptation. 6c2.D2 Irvine Beach to Gailes Burn MR MR Ongoing adaption to coastal change with local intervention and management plans. The Local CCAP reinforces the need to consider mitigation measures discussed in the SMP. • With respect to the Harbour, the Local CCAP recognises the need to address the increased flood risk with sea level rise considering the potential impact on the landscape and use of the area. • Further investigation is required into the nature of material contained within the Spoil Heap and the potential impact that ongoing erosion of the Spoil Heap would have on the marine environment. This would be taken forward through development of the Local CCAP. • Associated with the above, the Local CCAP identifies the need to consider and mitigate the potential influence any management would have on sediment supply along the shoreline, with particular reference the potential impacts on the West Gailes SSSI. • More generally, the overall intent to allow ongoing natural development of the dunes would maintain sediment supply along the frontage minimising the impact on the West Gailes SSSI. • The Local CCAP recommends the development of specific management plans for adaptation of the West Gailes area. Furthermore, developing the Access Management Plan aims to balance the need to maintain important and values use of the open coast alongside sustaining a healthy dune system. DRAFT
Page 88
Critical Decisions graphicalThe following Dynamic Adaptive Pathway diagram highlights where critical decisions will be needed in developing the CCAP into the future. The need for decisions are drive by anticipated Trigger Points relating to management of defences and risk or in anticipation of natural coastal change. Action Plan The following actions are required in delivery of the Local CCAP Action Description Notes Timescale Year (trigger) Irvine Harbour 1 Continue to maintain harbour defences Secures defence over the short to medium term, allowing consideration of longer-term options. 1 (50) 2 Highlight and raise awareness of longer- term flood risk Allows integration of potential future risk withing current planning 1 (50) Irvine Beach and Spoil Heap 3 Detailed investigation of potential contamination Determines further development of specific coastal management options. 1 (5 to 10) 4 Develop options for coastal management to Spoil Heap. Detailed option study 3 (5 to 10) 5 Detailed development of access plan. Working with partners to agree position of access points and approach to ongoing management Needs to take account of access management along spoil heap area. 3 (5) Broader Area 6 Raise awareness of potential need for adaptation to golf course frontages Establish initial contact and discuss how future planning may be facilitated. 1 (20) 7 Ongoing monitoring Allows review of trigger points and informs decisions ongoing DRAFT
Page 89
DRAFT
Page 90
No embedded text on this page.
Page 91
APPENDIX D
Page 92
No embedded text on this page.
Page 93
APPENDIX E
Page 94
No embedded text on this page.