Tamar Estuaries Consultative Forum. An Audit of Coastal Change in the Tamar Estuaries 1999

Transcription

1

2 Tamar Estuaries Consultative Forum. An Audit of Coastal Change in the Tamar Estuaries 1999 First published 1999 Reformatted for electronic publishing 2009 Tamar Estuaries Consultative Forum c/o Planning Services Plymouth City Council Fl 08 Civic Centre Plymouth PL1 2AA Tel:

3 Acknowledgements Compiling information for this project has only been possible with the kind assistance from a number of individuals. In particular, thanks are extended to: Queen s Harbour Master, Plymouth Cdr. Mike Gilbert (Royal Navy) Petty Officer Allen (Royal Navy) Steve Bottomley (South Hams District Council) Tim Charlesworth (Cattewater Harbour Commission) Jo Crix (English Nature) Dave Evans (Environment Agency) Len Hawke (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food) Peter Jonas (Environment Agency) Martine Lewis (West Devon Borough Council) Sarah Noble (Plymouth City Council) Linda Ridley (Caradon District Council) Martin Rule (Environment Agency) Sophia Sharif (Plymouth City Council) Paul Smith (Environment Agency) Mark Tosdevin (Plymouth City Museums) Stephen Williams (UK Hydrographic Office Data Centre) Tim Wood (Environment Agency) Background The reclamation of land for industrial, agricultural, housing and other purposes has a long history dating back many hundreds of years on some estuaries. The Tamar estuaries, although not experiencing as extensive land-claim as other estuaries nationally, have nonetheless had many episodes of progressive land claim for a variety of social, economic and military needs. These include agriculture, housing, leisure and industrial development, docks, ports and harbour construction, flood defence, waste disposal and other developments. The objective of the overview is to supply a factual account of where, when and why land claim has occurred. This study does not seek to analyse the ecological impacts or implications of land claim, or to make value judgements on them.

4 1. The Legal and Administrative Framework In order to appreciate how land claim events are considered, brief overview of the main legal controls may be helpful. The following summary outlines these controls, but must not be considered a definitive account of this legislation. The legal and administrative framework can be divided into three areas: control of development on Land; coastal and flood defence; and regulation of development on the seabed. 1.1 Control of Development on Land The Town and Country Planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. It is an important instrument for protecting and enhancing the environment, and for reconciling the interests of conservation and development. The principal planning legislation is contained in the Town and Country Planning Act Important amendments are contained in the Planning and Compensation Act Although the legislation does not specifically address development in the coastal zone, its various provisions are applicable in coastal areas. Local planning authorities exercises the powers provided by the 1990 Act. For maritime local planning authorities in England and Wales the administrative area, and hence the limits of control, normally ends at the Mean Low Water Mark (MLWM). Local authorities, statutory undertakers (including harbour authorities) or developers may seek Private Acts, to provide authorisation for certain projects or purposes. Bills for Private Acts are not introduced by a Member of Parliament, but are sought by the person or body promoting them. A petition for the Bill of Parliament must be deposited together with a copy of the Bill itself. Private Acts have been very important in facilitating the development of railways, canals, ports and harbours and the creation of public utilities such as electricity, gas and water. In the case of ports and harbours, Private Acts have been used to provide immunity from liability for interfering with public rights of navigation. Under common law these rights extend over all navigable tidal waters and any interference with them is actionable as a public nuisance. For this reason, any structure placed below MHWM, such as a jetty or pier, will constitute an obstruction and so must be authorised by statute. In recent years the proposed construction of barrages in Cardiff Bay and across the mouth of the River Tees have been the subject of private Bills. Within a more local context the Cattewater reclamation is also secured under a Private Act. A third form of legislation is the hybrid Act that is a combination of both a Public and Private Act. It is public in that it raises questions of public policy; its private element derives from the fact that it treats a particular private interest in a different way from the interests of other persons or bodies in the same category or class. Recent examples include the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and the Severn Bridges Act The Transportation and Works Act 1992 has changed the basis on which statutory authority for major infrastructure developments will be obtained. The Act introduces a new order making system in England and Wales under which proposals for railway, tramway and other guided transport projects, inland waterways and other schemes which interfere with navigation will be approved outside Parliament (other than schemes of national importance,

5 where Parliament will be asked to approve the broad policy and principles). Under the order developers will be able to secure all of the powers they could have secured by means of a Private Bill, including deemed planning permission, compulsory acquisition of land and the repeal or amendment of provisions in earlier private enactment s. For the purposes of this project, planning applications made to Caradon District Council, Plymouth City Council, South Hams District Council and West Devon Borough Council was reviewed for the period An approximate total of 2000 applications were examined at the respective planning offices. Additionally, information on the Cattewater reclamation was obtained from the Cattewater Harbour Commissioners. Further information on applications under the Town & Country Planning Act (1990) and matters relating to planning can be obtained from the relevant district or county planning office. 1.2 Coastal & Sea Defence The administration of coastal defence strategies involves two related management systems: coast protection and sea defence. Stated simply, coast protection is the protection of land from erosion and encroachment by the sea, whereas sea defence is the defence against flooding and inundation. Whilst this may appear a somewhat arbitrary distinction, it has arisen because of the historical responsibilities of coast protection authorities and river boards (now the Environment Agency in England and Wales). Whereas coast protection reflects a need to mitigate the effects of erosion, sea defences were constructed as an integral part of land drainage schemes to prevent flooding in river valleys. Powers to carry out works to defend the coastline of England and Wales are contained in The Coast Protection Act 1949, the Water Resources Act 1991 and The Land Drainage Act The first of these relates to coast protection, with the two 1991 Acts being concerned to sea defence. The 1949 Act empowers coast protection authorities to carry out such coast protection works, whether within or outside their area, as may be needed for the protection of any land in their area. In addition, a number of bodies have statutory powers to carry out works through various common law rights or Local Acts. Coast protection authorities should be viewed as having two functions: promoting their own schemes under the 1949 Act and regulating protection works by landowners or bodies with statutory powers. Indeed, they have wide-ranging powers to relate or control activities, which might affect the general coast protection of their areas. The prior approval of the relevant coast protection authority is required before any such works can be carried out (section 16), except for works carried out by persons or bodies covered by section 17. However, before proceeding with any works these bodies must notify the coast protection authority, which may lodge an objection with the appropriate Minister. Coast protection authorities may also make orders under section 18 of the 1949 Act (subject to confirmation by the Minister) to prohibit removal of material from any portion of the seashore within their area or lying to seaward. The Environment Agency has a statutory obligation to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence throughout England and Wales, in accordance with the Water Resources Act The authority can promote its own schemes and regulate

6 defence works by other bodies (see below). Under the 1991 Act the Environment Agency has the power to maintain existing defences and to improve and construct new defences against seawater and tidal water (section 165). These responsibilities are undertaken through ten Regional Flood Defence Committees. Additionally, under the 1991 Water Resources Act (section105) the Environment Agency is required to carry out surveys in relation to its flood defence functions, indicating where flooding problems are likely. The results of these surveys should be copied to the appropriate local planning authorities in order to inform them as they carry out their development plan and development control functions. In addition to the Environment Agency, a number of other bodies have powers or rights to construct sea defences. These include landowners, internal drainage boards (responsible for administrating areas with special drainage needs such as the Fens), highway authorities, British Rail and local authorities. In all cases these powers are permissive, as is the case for coast protection. In order to carry out its supervisory role over all flood defence matters, consent from the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works affecting sea defences or watercourses. Each Environment Agency region has produced its open set of byelaws for flood defence purposes (made under the 1991 Act section 210 and Schedule 25), specifically for securing the efficient working of any defence works of drainage system. Although the details vary between regions, byelaws are generally made for preventing activities that may endanger the stability of or cause damage to sea defences. Under section 14 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 Internal Drainage Boards have powers to implement measures in their areas, principally to reduce the flooding of agricultural land but may also protect urban areas. Maritime district councils (coast protection authorities) are provided with powers to protect land against flooding under the same section. Thus, two and sometimes three, authorities have powers to carry out sea defence works along a stretch of coastline. For England and Wales, there are much broader statutory consultation requirements for coast protection than sea defence works, as outlined earlier (1949 Act section 5). Coast protection works above MLWM require express planning permission for the local planning authority, reinforcing the requirement for broad consultation with interested groups. Consents may also be required from other authorities or bodies depending on the nature of the proposed scheme. Works below MLWM, such as breakwaters and headlands, require: a lease for use of the sea bed from the Crown Estate Commissioners; a licence to deposit anything in the sea from the relevant fisheries department, under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 Part II. In addition there are provisions within the 1949 Act (section 34), as amended by the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, to ensure that any works in tidal waters do not affect navigation, with consent required from the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions for the following operations: construction, alteration or improvement of any works on, under, or over any part of the seashore below spring MHWM;

7 deposit or removal of any object or materials below the level of spring MHWM. removal of any object or materials from the seashore below the level of mean low water springs (e.g. the dredging of minerals) Land Drainage Consents Developers, operators and landowners must obtain consent from the Environment Agency before carrying out works which may affect watercourses or sea defences. On receipt of the application, the Environment Agency is obliged to respond within 2 months. If no notification is provided within 2 months, the authority is deemed to have consented. The applicant has the right of appeal to an independent arbitrator or Government Minister if it is believed that consent has been unreasonably withheld. The authority s consent is given solely on flood defence and environmental criteria and is no substitute for planning permission or any other licences or consents that may be required. If works are carried out without prior approval, the Environment Agency can serve a notice requiring that the nuisance be abated within a specified time. The authority has the power to pull down, alter or remove any unauthorised works and recover the costs incurred in the process (Water Resources Act 1991 section 109). For the purposes of this project records relevant to coastal and flood defence from two areas were reviewed. Firstly, archives held at the Environment Agency Exeter office including construction of flood defence schemes, managed retreat, land claim events and construction schemes such as South West Water s Clean Sweep programme. Secondly, planning consultation and application records related to works on main rivers held by the Flood defence section were consulted at the Environment Agency s Bodmin office. Further information on consents under the Water Resources Act 1991 and The Land Drainage Act 1991 can be obtained from: Flood Defence Section, Environment Agency Cornwall Region, Sir John Moore House, Victoria Square, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 1EB 1.3 Regulation of Development on the Seabed In contrast to most local planning authorities harbour authorities powers can extend below MLWM and may involve the control of navigation or fishing within harbour waters. All have a significant degree of autonomy to operate under statutory powers set out in local Acts or Orders made under The Harbours Act Harbour authorities rely on statutory powers provided within local Acts for the construction and maintenance of harbour works below HWM to ensure that they are not open to challenge in the courts on the grounds that the works interfere with public rights of navigation. As a result of these statutory powers and the need to undertake operations within harbour waters, there is a range of methods to control or regulate activity, including the need for a licence to deposit materials or for construction below HWM from the relevant fisheries department (under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 Part II).

8 The original 1964 Act restricted the use of harbour orders to shipping and passenger freight activities. However, the Transport and Works Act 1992 includes important amendments to the 1964 Act, enabling harbour orders to be used in the case matters relating to the recreational use of harbours such as marinas. The amended Act now exempts operations authorised by harbour orders from the requirement to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State under section 35 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 which provides for the safety of navigation. The Secretary of State reviews applications for orders and decides whether the proposals are desirable for the improvement or efficient running of the harbour and can properly be made under the 1964 Act, taking into account the results of an environmental assessment and comments from bodies who have been consulted about it. If objections are raised then it is usual to resolve the dispute through a public inquiry. Additionally, under the Harbours Act 1964 the appropriate Secretary of State may, by order, prohibit a number of harbour buildings and structures (except dry docks). Authorisation for such works may be granted upon written application to the Secretary of State (section 9). Port and harbour authorities also benefit from significant permitted development rights under the 1988 General Development Order (Part 17 Class B) which permits: Development on operational land by statutory undertakers or their lessees in respect of dock, pier, harbour undertakings, required for the purposes of shipping, or in connection with the embarking, disembarking, loading, discharging or transport of passengers, livestock or goods at a dock, pier or harbour (1988 GDO, Part 17 Class B). Harbour authorities also have powers to take up, divert or alter the level of harbour watercourses to improve navigability, provided the result is an equally effective watercourse from the Environment Agency s water management perspective (Water Resources Act 1991 S.180). Coast Protection Act 1949, Section 34 Works in Tidal Waters Under Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (as amended by the Merchant Shipping Act 1988) ( the Act ) the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport is required for the following operations: the construction, alteration or improvement of any works on, under or over any part of the seashore lying below the level of mean high water springs; the deposit of any object or materials below the level of mean high water springs; or the removal of any object or materials from the seashore below the level of mean low water springs (e.g. the dredging of minerals). The Continental Shelf Act 1964 extends the control requirements under a. and c. above to any part of the seabed in designated areas outside territorial waters. All applications of any description under the Coast Protection Act within or near a proposed or designated Special protection area (SPA) or Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) will be

9 subject to environmental consideration if they have the potential to affect a designated site. Proposed designated sites are treated as if they are designated. Applicants who are competent authorities are responsible for getting prior approval from nature conservation body and sending a copy of this approval with their applications. Other private companies and individuals are advised to consult the relevant nature conservation body prior to applying for our consent and to copy relevant correspondence. The Secretary of State will consider the likely environmental affects of all applications in this category and may attach conditions to his consent in order to protect the designated sites. The principal area of investigation in terms of development on the seabed was licenses issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 Part II. Collation of all relevant applications was conducted at the Plymouth MAFF office and at their offices in London. Further Information concerning the Food & Environmental Protection Act 1985 (Part II) can be obtained from: District Fisheries Office Plymouth Fisheries Fish Quay Sutton Harbour Plymouth PL4 0LH 1.4 Other Sources of Information Outside of the information originating from the legal controls, a number of other important sources of data were consulted. In particular these included: Admiralty Charts Approximately 100 charts dating from 1779 including detailed maps of the development of the dockyard. Ordnance Survey Maps Dating from 1725 (the first reliable scaled mapping) to current digital mapping data Historic Maps & Case Studies Information held by Plymouth City Council s Archaeology section, Plymouth City Museums and the Plymouth and West Devon Record Office including historic maps and evolving case studies Application of Information to the Geographical Information System (GIS) Drawing upon such a variety of widely differing data and information storage systems proved a time consuming exercise. Problems were also encountered in relating data in a wide variety of scales and formats to today s landforms and features. The extent and progression of land claim was recorded using the developing MapInfo based GIS system. The flexibility of this system has allowed within the constraints of available data, as full an

10 account as possible of the history of land claim to be constructed. Each identified area of land claim has been plotted on 1998 Ordnance Survey digital data with the following categories of information indicated (where available): Date : a specific date or date range. Purpose : an indication of the original purpose for which intertidal and subtidal areas have been claimed. Area : the area of land claim as indicated by input on the GIS system, expressed in hectares. Data source: the base data from which an area of land claim has been illustrated. Date Granted: The date on which permission was given for land claim (where available and/or relevant). Date Completed: The date on which land claim was completed (where available and/or relevant). Comments: Any supplementary information to accompany the data. Upon data entry analysis was applied to illustrate trends with respect to time and the purpose of land claim.

11 2. Results & Analysis The results of this project were considered within two major categories of findings. The first category is the extent or area of land that has been reclaimed with time. The second area of findings is the reason for reclamation and the patterns of land usage that emerge from this analysis. 350 Area Claimed (Hectares) Year Figure 1: The pattern of land claim with time in the Tamar estuaries (NOTE: the time series on this graph is not to uniform scale) The data used in Figure 1 is detailed below Year Area (hectares) Pre Total The presentation of this data indicates a general trend of increasing land claim until approximately the mid-1800s with a gradual decline in the area of land claimed since that period to the present day. However, in considering this data several points must be borne in mind before drawing further conclusions. The date that has been attributed to each land claim area relates to the date at which it is understood that in-fill began. Additionally, due to difficulties within the scope of this project in determining the exact dates of a land claim

12 event, data has been aggregated, particularly in the period Indeed, even later land claim events such as the gradual in-filling of the lower estuarine creeks prove problematic in determining an exact date of infill. This is due to the fundamental nature of many land claim events. Some have involved a gradual process of in-fill, with the tipping of in-fill material occurring when activities dictated. This is particularly true of earlier land claim events. This is in contrast to the more considered planning and licence processes undertaken for permitted land claim in more recent times. Figures 2-4 illustrate the extent of land claim with time

13

14

15

16 Figure 6 illustrates the reasons for which land claim has occurred as a percentage. Agricultural Development Transport & Parking 49.6% 0.3% 20.3% Docks, Ports & Harbour Construction Flood Defence 1.0% 1.8% Industrial/Housing/Leisure Development Other 1.9% 0.2% 24.9% Pier/Quay/Jetty/Breakwater/ Slipway Construction Waste disposal - Landfill Figure 6: Purposes of past and proposed reasons for land claim in the Tamar Estuaries From the available data the majority of land claim events appear to have been for agricultural purposes (49.6%). As Eno (1991) points out early land-claim was for the enclosure of saltmarshes with earth banks so as to restrict and control tidal inundation and provide better conditions for stock. Eno (1991) also states that it can be assumed that almost all the low-lying land protected by seawalls surrounding estuaries was originally enclosed for agricultural purposes, although they may in many cases have been later enlarged or strengthened to protect housing and industry, which expanded subsequently onto the enclosed marshes. This pattern of events appears to be reflected in some instances within the Tamar estuaries. Chelson Meadow on the banks of the Plym is indicated as mud flats and saltmarsh in early Ordnance Survey maps. Maps in the early 1800 s indicate a bund constructed on the line of the current east bank of the Plym. Following this, maps indicate agricultural usage and then at the turn of this century the construction of a racetrack and further drainage of the land. Up until the early 1960 s the site lay mainly derelict until it was designated for its current use as a landfill site. This pattern is also reflected at Ernesettle (above the Tamar Bridge) now used for industrial and housing purposes. On the eastern banks of the Plym towards Plympton (hence the now defunct quay at Colebrook) and on the western banks of the Plym where parks and housing lie in a pattern which to this day delineates the footprint of Lipson Creek and its marshes.

17 The upper reaches of the estuaries also reflect this pattern of land claim for agricultural purposes. This period of land claim is indicated in early Ordnance Survey maps and proposed by Firth et al. (1998). The difference between the upper reaches compared to areas nearer the open coast is that the agricultural usage has been continued with many field boundaries but identifiable as being close to the original line of marshes and intertidal flats. Housing and industrial developments relating to the expansion of urban areas, particularly towards the end of the last century, accounts for the next most significant proportion of land claim events (24.9%). For this study land claim for these purposes has been aggregated as general development. This is because changes in coastline and the loss of intertidal areas appear to be the result of progressive in-filling. In particular creeks, tributaries and other intertidal areas have been reclaimed in response to social, economic or military demands. An example of this is Keyham Creek. The mouth of Keyham Creek was first claimed with the northward development of Devonport Dockyard. Following this, the eastern end of the creek was claimed. A remnant of the creek survived until the early 1900 s at which point it was completely filled in and no apparent trace of the creek exists today. A similar pattern can be seen with the claiming of Stonehouse Creek, as well as a very large area of marsh which extended to the current location of Plymouths town centre called the sour-pool. The third largest proportion of land claim has been for the purpose of port, docks and harbour development (20.3%), which applies mainly to the city of Plymouth. Plymouth as it stands today was formed by the gradual amalgamation of three areas Dock (Devonport Dockyard) Plymouth (centred on Sutton Harbour) and Stonehouse. This is significant in terms of land claim because of the differing ways in which development progressed in these respective areas. The area now known as Sutton Harbour has an extremely complicated pattern of land claim dating back over several centuries. Development around the harbour has mainly been for quays and wharfs relating to contemporary demands and industries. The same is true of the neighbouring Cattewater, albeit a more recent pattern of development, perhaps again dictated by the changing and developing nature of port related industries. Stonehouse, including Millbay, has a similar pattern of gradual development into Stonehouse Creek though Millbay Docks appears to have been developed from a large tidal basin into the form in which it appears today. Perhaps not surprisingly, Devonport Dockyard has perhaps the most distinct and welldocumented development of all the port and harbour facilities. Starting around 1692 the Dockyard has undergone progressive expansion to the south and north. Indeed, early maps indicate the hulks of scrapped vessels being sunk into the mud prior to the construction of the South Yard. Admiralty charts clearly illustrate the expansion of the Dockyard has continued northwards up the eastern banks of the Hamoaze in discrete periods of construction.

18 3. Conclusions This report is a baseline study of coastline change within the Tamar estuaries. From the research conducted it appears that the pattern of land claim indicates that the majority of events not associated with the role of Plymouth as a strategic military port, were before the 20th Century and are very probably related to the economic and social changes heralded by the agricultural and industrial revolutions. Since this period considerably less land claim has occurred, although the creeks and tributaries of the estuaries appeared to be the most vulnerable to small-scale events. Perhaps less obvious, is the degree to which more recent events are scrutinised. The legal controls are considerably more onerous, and imply a greater emphasis on improved data and consultation. The existence and working arrangements within the Tamar Estuaries Consultative Forum has provided a useful platform to enhance the qualitative basis of these controls. Additional areas of research are proposed below. 4. Recommendations Planning and other Legislative Consents As indicated by the findings of this study, planning and other licensing procedures have yielded valuable information on charting changes in the coastal profile of the Tamar estuary complex. A centralised mechanism should be established to enable the continued registration of future land claim consents centrally on the established MapInfo GIS system. Managed Retreat There is already one area of managed retreat being piloted within the estuaries. Areas within the estuaries, particularly within the upper reaches, have been identified that were once intertidal habitats. Examination of these areas may reveal locations that provide further opportunities for managed retreat, which is an objective outlined in relevant Biodiversity Action Plans. Aerial photography A range of historic aerial photograph archives exist that would provide a very useful validation exercise for the information collected to date through this project. Aerial photographs are of particular value as registering the photo and placing it on top of digital data may draw comparisons. The use of aerial photographs would be twofold. Firstly, historic photographs may be used to analyse past coastal changes. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, new aerial photographs would enable very valuable analysis of actual changes.

19 Historical Ordnance Survey Maps Ordnance Survey maps have been produced at relatively frequent intervals and most are held by various archives including the Plymouth and West Devon Record Office and Plymouth City Museum. Many of these maps give an exceptional level of detail and information beyond the scope of this study. Analysis of such maps would very probably yield a more detailed picture of land claim, particularly over the last 140 years. Archaeological Investigations A number of detailed archaeological investigations and overviews have been conducted for sites around the Tamar estuaries. Elements of this project have been drawn from information derived by these investigations including digital data. However, owing to the detailed nature of such investigations, it has not been possible within the scope of these works to incorporate all the data yielded by these studies. Area studies Certain elements of this study have highlighted areas such as Oreston & Turnchapel, Stonehouse, Torpoint and Saltash which have had relatively small scale land claim events over a long period of time. Such land claim events have, as indicated by comparison of maps in this study, effected tangible change in local coastline profiles. Using detailed mapping sources a far more comprehensive picture of such changes could be accurately assessed.

20 5. References Chalkey B., Dunkerly D., & Griapaios P. (eds.). (1991). Plymouth: Maritime City in Transition. Department of the Environment (1993). Coastal Planning and Management: A Review. HMSO London. (Rendel Geotechnics. Contract No. PECD 7/1/403) Evening Herald (1997). Then and Now. Special Publication (15/9/97) Evening Herald (1998). Then and Now. Special Publication (27/7/98) Evening Herald (1998). Then and Now. Special Publication (26/10/98) Eno C. (1991). Marine Conservation Handbook (2 nd Edition). Marine Science - English Nature. Peterborough. Firth A, Watson K & Ellis C. (1998). Tamar Estuaries Historic Environment a review of marine and coastal archaeology. Plymouth Archaeology Occasional Publication No Gill C. (1997). Sutton Harbour. Devon Books Ordnance Survey Data (scales 1:1250 1:10000 including RASTER, digital and analogue formats) UK Hydrographic Office Admiralty Charts (including Series 20, 871 & 1967). Taunton.UK Wessex Archaeology (1995) Plymouth Sound maritime archaeological recording project. Report No

21

22 Appendix 2 Data associated with land claim events as shown on Inset Maps ID No Date Purpose Area Notes (Post) Flood Defence Agricultural Development General Development (Post) General Development (Post) General Development Pier Construction Slipway Construction Slipway Construction Industrial Development (Post) Industrial Development Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction Quay Construction (Post) Agricultural Development (Pre) Agricultural Development (Post) General Development General Development Agricultural Development Land claim event that is now being piloted as managed retreat Agricultural Development Appears to have been bunded then claimed as agricultural land (Pre) Agricultural Development Waste disposal - Landfill (Post) Agricultural Development Dockyard Construction Dockyard Construction Dockyard Construction (Pre) Agricultural Development (Pre) Agricultural Development (Pre) Agricultural Development (Pre) Agricultural Development (Pre) Agricultural Development Saltmarsh claimed for agricultural purposes (Pre) Agricultural Development (Pre) Agricultural Development (Post) Quay Development (Post) General Development Quay Development Dockyard Construction 19.97

23 ID No Date Purpose Area Notes 37 UNKNOWN Slipway Construction UNKNOWN Pier Construction UNKNOWN Quay Construction UNKNOWN Quay Construction UNKNOWN Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction (Post) Slipway Construction Shingle beach for Torpoint ferry covered in concrete 50 UNKNOWN Slipway Construction Shingle beach for Torpoint ferry covered in concrete 51 UNKNOWN Slipway Construction (Post) Dockyard Construction General Development Flood Defence Slipway Construction Cargreen Yacht Club, proposed Slipway. Scheme not granted or completed Construction of Angling Development not commenced or completed according to OS vector data (1998) Lakes Slipway Construction Development not commenced or completed according to OS vector data (1998) Hardstanding Development refused on flood, landscape and nature conservation grounds River Defence Wall Development not commenced or completed according to OS vector data (1998) 60 UNKNOWN Seawalls & Slipways Actual construction does not match planning file plans Seawalls & Slipways Actual construction does not match planning file plans 62 UNKNOWN Seawalls & Slipways Boat & Car Parking Boat Parking Infill permitted as revised scheme from illegal infill conducted during construction in Construction of Island Islands constructed for the encouragement of wildlife especially birdlife Construction of Island Islands constructed for the encouragement of wildlife especially birdlife Slipway & Hardstanding Construction not shown on OS Vector Data (1998) Slipway & Hardstanding Construction not shown on OS Vector Data (1998) Quay Construction Construction not shown on OS Vector Data (1998) Quay Construction Construction not shown on OS Vector Data (1998) (Post) General Development General Development 6.673

24 ID No Date Purpose Area Notes Agricultural Development Infill of Saltings through tipping of inert material (Circa) Breakwater Construction Sea Wall Repair & Construction or permissions not confirmed Improvements General Development Harbour Construction Port Construction (Post) General Development (Post) General Development Port Construction General Development Post 1953 General Development Dockyard Construction Dockyard Construction Quay Construction General Development General Development General Development General Development General Development Dockyard Construction (Post) General Development Harbour Impoundment Harbour Impoundment Flood Defence Flood Defence Dockyard Construction Port Construction Port Construction On General Development Admirals Hard constructed Pier Construction Dockyard Construction General Development 5.29 Tide mill and dam constructed between but northern section remained tidal General Development Agricultural Development General Development General Development Dam constructed to form a mill pond Area infilled post General Development An area of saltmarsh indicated in early charts. Locally known as the 'sourpool'

25 ID No Date Purpose Area Notes 110 UNKNOWN Industrial Jetty Construction UNKNOWN Industrial Jetty Construction UNKNOWN Industrial Jetty Construction UNKNOWN Industrial Jetty Construction UNKNOWN Industrial Jetty Construction Bridge Construction Bridge Construction Bridge Construction Bridge Construction Bridge Construction Bridge Construction Bridge Construction Bridge Construction Dockyard Construction General Development An area of saltmarsh at the end of Kinterbury Creek that has been claimed though some marshy areas appear to persist General Development (Circa) Bridge Construction Bridge Construction UNKNOWN Boatyard Development Dockyard Construction (Post) Dockyard Construction Dockyard Development Dockyard Development Dockyard Construction Dockyard Construction Dockyard Construction Dockyard Construction (Pre) Agricultural Development (Post) Agricultural Development (Post) Agricultural Development (Post) Agricultural Development (Post) General Development (Post) Agricultural Development (Post) Agricultural Development (Post) Agricultural Development (Post) Agricultural Development (Post) General Development (Post) General Development 1.207

26 ID No Date Purpose Area Notes (Post) General Development (Post) General Development UNKNOWN Slipway Construction UNKNOWN Slipway Construction UNKNOWN Slipway Construction UNKNOWN Slipway Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction (Post) Port Construction Bridge Construction (Post) General Development Bridge Construction Bridge Construction 0.075