Protect the road and beach
Reduce risk to the road while considering beach conditions and future maintenance.
Evidence to use
| Site | Position relative to wall | Beach width in 2016 (m) | Beach width in 2026 (m) | Shoreline retreat (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| North | Updrift | 40 | 52 | 1 |
| South | Downdrift | 40 | 24 | 8 |
Waves approach obliquely from the north-east. Net longshore transport is towards the south. A photograph description records a narrow beach and exposed cliff at South. These are fictional observations.
| Option | Main benefit | Main drawback |
|---|---|---|
| Replenish South beach | Wider beach absorbs wave energy | Sand needs replacing |
| Extend the wall | Protects a road directly | High cost; effects farther along coast |
The budget
| Option | Initial cost (£ million) | Annual maintenance (£ million) |
|---|---|---|
| Beach replenishment | 2 | 0.4 |
| Sea-wall extension | 8 | 0.1 |
Compare a 20-year period. Ignore inflation and discounting for this exercise. Replenishment totals £10 million; the wall also totals £10 million. Both fit the assumed £10 million lifetime allowance.
Different viewpoints
Road user
We need the road to stay open during storms. A cheap option is no help if it cannot protect the road.
Beach business
Visitors use the beach. Keeping a wide beach could support trade as well as absorb wave energy.
Coastal scientist
Sediment moves along this shore. We need to assess effects beyond the protected frontage.
Possible approaches
- Replenish the beach
- Extend the sea wall
- Collect storm and sediment evidence before committing
Compare effects on people, costs and the environment where they are relevant. Use the scale and date of the evidence carefully.
Try it yourself
Recommend an approach. Use evidence, compare an alternative and explain one condition that could change your decision.
One possible answer
At the original rates, both options cost £10 million over 20 years. Replenishment also maintains a beach, while a wall offers direct frontage protection. At £0.6 million annual maintenance, replenishment totals £14 million. That exceeds the assumed allowance, but the final choice still needs evidence about storm performance, beach use and effects elsewhere.
Check your answer: did you address the question, use accurate evidence and explain the link?
New evidence
Storms now require replenishment every year at £0.6 million. Calculate the revised 20-year total and explain whether cost alone settles the decision.
Test your decision
What is the strongest argument against your choice? Would new evidence about cost, access or environmental effects change your recommendation?
Review your answer
Check that your recommendation meets the stated aim. Explain what the evidence supports, address an alternative fairly and make any uncertainty specific.