Click here to return to the Scarborough Photo Album

The information on these pages is taken from a report published by Scarborough Council's web site (www.e-sbc.co.uk) and is available in Adobe Acrobat Format from this link:-

http://www.e-sbc.co.uk/pdf_files/coast_protection/scarborough_coast_protection_works.pdf

The file is 567Kb in size, and is reproduced here because it sometimes takes a long time to load.

East Pier, Castle Headland and The Holms, Scarborough - Coast Protection Works

The information contained on these pages in relation to these works will detail the following: -

• The Site
• The need for the coastal protection works
• The Scheme Objectives
• The Problems
• The Options Considered
• The Preferred Scheme
• Approval & Consultation Period
• Programme of Works
• The Methods of Construction

• Limited residual life of the existing coastal defence structures,
• Severe wave overtopping resulting from near vertical seawalls and breakwaters, low crest elevations and in places low foreshore elevations,
• Residual landslide risk with significant problems associated with major first time failures caused by renewed cliff foot erosion, expansion of shallow landslides, extreme groundwater levels, slope drainage failures and also major reactivation of pre-existing failures

• Ageing coastal protection structures (18th to early 20th century structures with limited residual life),
• Overtopping,
• Residual landslide risk,
• Potential for loss of structures and loss of protection,
• Threat to public safety,
• Threat to protected assets (Estimated at approximately £ 100 million)

Back to top of page

• Coastal protection to be structurally sound and with a future design life of at least 50 years,
• Minimise ongoing maintenance of the coastal protection structures,
• Limit overtopping to reduce storm damage and impact of storm events on the Harbour,
• Marine Drive and the Holms,
• Meet Environmental Objectives,
• Reduce the risk of danger to the public.

Back to top of page

The Problems - East Pier

Picture above shows the East Pier, Scarborough - The daily challenge.

• It is an ancient Grade II Listed Structure (c. 1732 & earlier),
• Consists of a rubble filled dressed masonry structure founded on rubble rock bund,
• Sea wall masonry in poor condition with remaining residual life low,
• Apron deteriorating with extensive rehabilitation required,
• Overtopping of the pier causes regular wave disturbance in the Outer Harbour and hazard to users of the East Pier and Outer Harbour.

Back to top of page

• Do nothing,
• Do minimum (minimum maintenance),
• Re-build on existing line,
• Construct a new sea wall seaward,
• Offshore breakwater.

• Rock revetment at 1:4 slope armoured with 9-18 tonne rock due to aggressive wave climate,
• Covers and protects entire existing bund,
• Meets design life criteria,
• Overtopping significantly reduced,
• Significant future maintenance still required,
• Construction problems,
• Highly visible structure.

• Accropode revetment at 1:5 slope with 6.3 & 9 metre cubed accropodes,
• Toe of new structure on existing bund, toe detail must address erosion problem,
• Meets design life criteria,
• Minimum future maintenance,
• Overtopping significantly reduced,
• Construction problems less than with rock armour,
• Less visible structure than rock revetment.

• Concrete sea wall with road behind,
• Concrete deteriorating with extensive rehabilitation required,
• Some erosion at toe of wall,
• Increased overtopping of the sea wall causes regular road closures (>35/year)

Back to top of page

• They interlock and thus a lighter unit can be used for given wave conditions. This allows
• steeper slopes to be used for revetment design.
• They have a greater percentage of voids and therefore the overtopping for given wave
• conditions and slope is less.

• The smaller profile of an accropode armoured bund, smaller volume of material, lower intrusion into inshore waters (navigation, fisheries and foreshore),
• The smaller size of the individual units,
• Lower overall capital costs,
• Greater stability and lower maintenance (critical).

• Environmental: Reduced visual impact and minimum foreshore cover,
• Stability and reduced maintenance,
• Easier constructability,
• Lower overall construction costs (£ 26 million)

Back to top of page

• Council Approval of preferred scheme,
• Scheme public consultation process involved the following: -
• Coast Protection Act 1949 (Notification of scheme under Section 5),
• FEPA (1985) Licence to DEFRA (Licence to deposit material below High Water Mark)
• Section 34 of Coast Protection Act 1949 - (DETR Ports Division for works below High Water Mark)
• Listed Building Consent for East Pier - (Grade II Listed Structure)
• Planning Application & Approval from Planning Authority

Back to top of page

• Contract Period of 22 months,
• Contract Value Total of £ 26 million.