Happisburgh Case Study - ICZM

Question 1

Why did the town of Happisburgh make the appeal for coastal defences?

Answer 1

1600km fetch along with North Sea storms create high energy destructive waves+ unconsolidated glacial till lithology === high rates of recession

Question 2

Why was the happisburgh protection rejected?

Answer 2

Fears of the creation of a promontory resulting in sediment starvation downdrift and the destruction of other communities

Question 3

Why would the happisburgh protection have been useless anyway?

Answer 3

Eventually wave refraction would go around the defences, rendering them useless

Question 4

What was the result of the cost benefit analysis for the Happisburgh protection?

Answer 4

The protection would be cost effective as the costs were 6 million however Happisburgh was worth more than that

Question 5

What policy decision was made?

Answer 5

No active intervention

Question 6

What would occur if the protection went forward?

Answer 6

There would be increased recession either side of the Happisburgh protection, leading to Happisburgh becoming a promontory (similar to a headland)

Question 7

Why would Happisburgh becoming a promontory be bad?

Answer 7

The promontory would disrupt LSD moving sediment down the coast resulting in Sediment starvation and increased downdrift recession

Question 8

Where and what has the no active intervention policy decision protected?

Answer 8

In the downdrift villages of winter Tom on sea, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft — by 2105 20-35 houses worth £4-7million protected+ 45 ha of farmland protected (worth £950000)
Manor caravan park relocation assistance of £160000 saving jobs

Question 9

What has no active intervention caused to be lost in Happisburgh?

Answer 9

Homes, grade 1 listed at Mary’s church, grade 2 listed Manor House