Cuckmere Estuary Partnership

Q: If there is a floodplain created south of A259 how do we know north of A259 will be protected from flooding? What about villages protection and access during floods north of A259?

A: The Environment Agency’s models show that restoring the Cuckmere to a naturally functioning estuary will not increase the risk of flooding upstream. 

Further details about the areas upstream of Exceat Bridge are dealt with in the Cuckmere and Sussex Havens Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP).  This document includes an action plan that lists the further studies that will be done.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: It seems all or nothing! Would it be possible to protect the Eastern side (cell C and perhaps B) but allow flooding on the west side (cell A)?

A: The Environment Agency’s study that informed the flood risk management strategy does compare the benefits and cost of partial protection, but the economics were not beneficial.

In 2003, technical assessments were undertaken to check the flood risk implications of taking a phased approach to restoring a naturally functioning estuary. In summary, the assessment established that restoring the western flood plain alone would greatly increase the risk of collapse of the eastern flood bank. As a result, later studies have considered the estuary as a whole.

Further information can be found in the Cuckmere Estuary Strategy Project Appraisal Report.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q:  If the mouth blocked up before the cut was built, surely it will block up if the sea defences that exist are removed, and therefore will not be self-scouring?

A: The Environment Agency’s modelling predicts that if the defences were removed, the amount of tidal water entering the estuary would keep the mouth clear.  The Environment Agency is committed to monitoring the river mouth and will keep clearing it until it becomes self clearing.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: May we have breakdown of alleged £18m costs and its timescale? What will the cost be of the earth embankment south of A259 and round canoe barn under option 3?

A: A breakdown of costs for all options can be found in the Environment Agency’s Cuckmere Estuary Strategy Project Appraisal Report (PAR) which is available to download from the ‘Partners’ policy documents’ page from the Resources section of this site.

The Environment Agency did not individually cost each element of Option 3, because it was clear that this option could not qualify for funding under the funding rules.

Although the Environment Agency’s Option 3 included a lengthy earth embankment, it is by no means certain that this would be required. The Partnership will consider this in development of its future management plan.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: Why are river banks north of A259 not maintained as they used to be? This affects river flow/flooding.

A: The Environment Agency has an annual river maintenance programme to reduce flood risk and improve habitats for wildlife.  This programme is risk-based in line with government policy.

The Environment Agency’s current maintenance works here include:

- making sure outfalls are clear of debris
- removing blockages
- weedcutting when required.

The Environment Agency is also working with parish councils to establish a future maintenance regime for this area.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: Why has it cost so much to do the study? I was told it was £600,000. Is this true? If not, what was the cost and who paid for it and in what proportions? I was also told the audit commission questioned this expenditure.

A: The Flood Risk Management Strategy that the Environment Agency has developed for Cuckmere has cost £560,000.  The strategy looks at the next 100 years to make sure that the Environment Agency understands the future implications of what they do and finds the right long-term solution.

This money has funded extensive research into improving understanding of the specific environment of the estuary and how it works, which enables them to make the best decisions about the estuary’s future. 

The money has also paid for detailed modelling, identifying options and the costs and benefits of those options and consultation with local people.

The National Audit Office (NAO) reviewed the Environment Agency’s expenditure on this strategy in 2006 and, overall, were happy with the way that the funding was used. The NAO did recommend the Agency make sure the cost benefit analysis covered all the factors and also suggested the Partnership try to bring all shades of opinion together to attempt to reach a consensus.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News