ALDE AND ORE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP DRAFT MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE TWENTYFIRST MEETING OF THE ALDE AND ORE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP HELD ON THURSDAY 25 JUNE 2026 AT 6.30PM AT ORFORD TOWN HALL
PRESENT:
Nominated representatives
Frances Barnwell (FB) ViceChairman AOCP
Tom Daly Cllr. East Suffolk Council
Anthony Armitage(Arm) Cllr. Aldeburgh Town Council
Andrew McDonald(AM) Cllr. Snape PC
David McGinity(DMc) Cllr. Butley, Capel St Andrews and Wantisden PC
Bill Parker (BP) Cllr Sudbourne PC
Oliver Morgan(OM) Cllr. Tunstall PC
Edward Greenwell (EG) ESIDB alternate
Alison Andrews(AA)Hon Secretary Alde and Ore Association
Julia Ewart Suffolk County Councillor, her ward includes most of the Alde and Ore area, attended in a personal capacity as SCC will be making appointments of Councillors to attend different bodies on 30 June 2026.
ADVISERS/ATTENDEES:
Kari Nash (KN) East Suffolk Water Management Board (ESWMB)
Gordon Glasgow(GG) ESWMB Project Officer for the Alde and Ore
David Kemp (DK) Environment Agency ( East Anglia Incidents Recovey Manager)
George Fuhrmann(GF) Environment Agency (Norfolk and Suffolk)
Jane Maxim (JM) The Alde & Ore Estuary Trust (AOET)
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: 1 and 2 apologies
AGENDA
1. Apologies: Tim Wilson Cllr. East Suffolk Council (Rendlesham and Orford Ward); Ben Coulter Butley, Capel St Andrew and Wantisden; Peter McGinity Chillesford Parish Meeting; Boyton PC rep; Roger Dawson Hollesley PC; Alan Hutson Iken PC; Ian Thornton Orford and Gedgrave PC; Bill Parker Sudbourne PC; Harry Young Business Repr; Jane Skepper East Suffolk IDB Chair; Chris Gill AOCP Treasurer; Natural England.
2. Declarations of interest: Annual declaration forms had been circulated and returns were being made quickly. The Chair added that there were no issues today that were location specific.
3. Minutes of the meeting on 26 March 2026
These were approved.
4. Matters arising from the meeting on 26 March 2026 not otherwise on the agenda
Para 7.3 FB reported that the meeting being arranged very kindly by our MP, Jenny Riddell Carpenter, to bring together organisations and people who might commit to a new way of achieving the Estuary Plan, was now scheduled for 10 July. She was very optimistic about this. DMc said that at a recent constituency meeting JRC had said she was very keen on this.
5. Update on action towards implementing the rolling 5-year programme of prioritized works to safeguard the river defences within the Estuary Plan
5.1 FB said that since the last meeting in March, there had been continual progress made with the proposal for a 5 year prioritized programme of works to address the river defences agreed at the last meeting; agreements had been made with partners and the ESWMB Project Officer had taken up his post and as well as gathering data had walked most of the walls including some with her and AA which had been very useful. She asked KN to begin the presentation. Developments.
5.2 KN recapped on where we are; we are not reinventing the wheel. The Estuary Plan provides the aims to keep the estuary defences where they are, how it looks and feels today, its shape, environment, business and economy, and to secure resilience so while overtopping will happen in a big event it can be managed to enable getting back to normal very quickly and catastrophic breaches avoided. The Plan also has built in the aim to keep defences maintained on a rolling basis. In the last few years’, the focus on the capital project has meant that updating has slipped so there is a bit of catch-up to come but the now 5-year prioritized programme will achieve that and give time to get future capital projects underway.
5.3 The key points achieved since the end of March were that there is:
– a real partnership on the way of working has been achieved involving the ESWMB, AOCP, AOET and the EA;
– a financial partnership ensuring reliable funds over the five years and that provides a good base to attract further funds, provided initially by ESWMB (via the PWL ( public works loan)) and the AOET, with a smaller sum from the EA;
– a delivery partnership which reduces the bureaucracy between the ESWMB and EA such as in relation to licences needed
– the programme is looking at all the flood cells together throughout the entire estuary not divided between the upper and lower estuary.
Now, with that firm basis, the work to identify where works in the estuary are needed, such as low spots, poor revetments, blockwork and similar, is well in hand. That will create a long list of works which can then be prioritised into the 5-year programme based on critical impact and vulnerability in the estuary. Further, having reliable funding is likely, based on other experience, to attract other funds once it is underway.
5.4 Gordon Glasgow took up his appointment in late April as the Project Manager of the project. He said that his objective today was to put in front of AOCP what ESWMB were actually doing, collecting in all relevant data and showing how that feeds into a prioritised needs based analysis and assessment of works to be done. His other main responsibility was winning funds.
5.5 Because the estuary is being considered as a whole, they were using a data driven approach for any and every part of the estuary. The main data components, being gathered for every flood cell, are
– LIDAR which provides height of the surface data metre by metre, (the walls were flown over at regular intervals to take the readings);
– water levels, using EA models, This data is essential, as the hydrodynamics of the estuary are very complex with greater power occurring lower down than higher up the estuary, they affecting the load of water and potential fragility on any part of the walls,
– flood defence assets, what and where they are, including adjacent high ground and walls, standard of condition/protection they provide. GG was using the EA AIMS system which records this information as using a common set of data was important,
– Alde & Ore Association River Defence annual surveys on the state of the walls including indications of where something may be failing,
– Ground truthing (walking) such as taking point elevations, GPS image surveys, checking any points where the paper data was unclear such as unusual vegetation or cracks. It was important to check all the facts and have a clear accurate starting base.
5.6 GG was in the process of pulling together all the data-, LIDAR, vegetation and water levels, walls (assets) data-, to construct a profile for every chainage of the walls. He showed an example of this from a sample stretch of the walls on the estuary. The slides, showing the work in progress of depicting the collated data, can be seen on the AOCP website, (www.aocp.co.uk): they show, at metre apart intervals, the cross section of a wall shape, elevation, natural vegetation, and the uneven surfaces reflecting the real life variability according to usage, footfall and other factors. The defences will be overtopped but we are trying to make sure every asset is robust and can withstand that load.
In response to questions GG confirmed that crest width was also recorded at metre intervals as were backslope angles to identify slippage, or vulnerable front faces. He stressed that crest levels were not the whole story, a lower crest level on a wider bank could be less vulnerable than a higher narrow bank.
5.7 GG said that his next steps for a few weeks were to continue with analysis, ground truthing including checking any areas other than grass with heavy vegetation – the roots of which could undermine the solidity of a wall, leading to an assessment of the different degrees of fragility of different parts of the walls. The fragility or vulnerability was calculated using recognized parameters. These brought in all factors including a full range of water levels occurring at different frequencies, to work out the likelihood of failure. He confirmed in answer to questions that factors such as different water levels on different parts of bank walls, the impact of the width of saltmarsh vegetation reflecting the differentiation of water load on the walls, as well as the height or thinness of walls, could all be taken into account. He asked that if anyone had information they thought relevant, would they please pass it on to him.
BP said that an issue in the 2013 surge was that the surge was tide locked which increased flooding levels up river but recognized such events did not always occur. Could that be built into the calculations? DK said that there was a great deal of data on past storms and these were fed into the calculations so every time they get a bit more accurate.
5.8 In further questions:
i. EG complimented GG on the impressive work and asked how the value of what was being protected in each section would be assessed to help with the prioritisation. GG said he had yet to address that in detail; there were factors required by Treasury rules which needed to be covered: but he would be using all the data on what was being protected by the walls including that contained in the Estuary Plan.
ii. FB asked about a balance between assets like houses and that of the sewage works which might affect more people. DK said that they had discussed the relative merits of public and private assets with the Treasury but Treasury criteria had never really suited the Suffolk coast and estuaries, e.g. not taking account of long wall stretches, the value of farmland, but EA would argue the case and would share their workings with the community. GG added the community values should be reflected in the valuations.
iii. AMcD asked if there was a danger of finding a balance that could put in jeopardy a later capital programme. DK stated this was not the case. The proposed programme was not building new assets and qualified in financial terms as revenue spending and so did not fall under capital project rules.
iv. TD asked if the modelling could be run to see further ahead in time but GG said it was about fragility of the defences at this time.
v. BP accepted that under the current proposal assets would be improved and wanted the current plans to stay on track, but suggested that, longer term, there needed to be a conversation that the estuary as it is won’t last forever and consideration might be given to making strategic changes to make the estuary more resilient in the longer term as circumstances such as climate change could change the situation. This could have funding implications on choices in the future. A second track looking to the future as well as the current plans was needed. TD agreed. JM suggested that delving back into the history of the estuary project, for example the hydrological modelling of the estuary flows should different parts of the estuary be allowed to be flooded, such as the Tidal Lagoon Power investigation. This analysis might be quite an interesting exercise and give some idea about the outcomes of breaching in different parts of the estuary..
5.9 On the timetable for getting the work done GG said the plan for July was to continue detailed investigations, refine assessment methods and work with the EA on maintenance priorities and requests for funding, in August testing methods for assessing conditions and reliability of flood defence assets to create an initial ‘long list’ of possible maintenance and improvement works. During September to December there would be targeted site surveys to confirm maintenance needs, work on assessing the best type of intervention and reach a recommended programme of works for the five-year management period. December to April would see obtaining necessary consents or licences, design works, access arrangements and enabling works so that works could commence across the Estuary in April 2027.
5.10 JM, for AOET, said it was important to know where the money was coming from. She explained that the 5-year plan was being funded initially by ESWMB and AOET- we are supporting the programme initially in the hope EA will come up with more funding as time goes on and as we know more about what is needed. AOET was providing 50% of the Project Manager costs and of the annual works programme of £500,000 and was working on the basis that ESWMB will be asking EA and other sources for funding during the 5-year programme.
5.11 FB echoed the view of all that they were very grateful to GG for his work, his clear explanations providing understanding of how and why priorities would be established and the importance of knowing the better the data, the more helpful to developing a good plan.
6. Estuary Plan Review
FB said that the 10 yearly rev iew of the Plan was due this year. The updating Annex published in 2024 had brought things up to date at that time but proposals and funding then had had to be put on one side. She saw the review as being an update process, and suggested that it was a bit premature to start drafting a further updating Annex now as there needed to be a clearer articulation of the 5 year programme being prepared now. She suggested the review should be done when the current programme was nearer to completion. Everyone agreed.
7. Communications
i. FB said will be crucially important that when plan is ready to go live, it is not just communicated well but that communities can or do take more interest and become more engaged. Currently it appears people are not that involved. ESWMB is shortly producing an update on the development of plans but what sort of event or process to make sure people come along, possibly participate, such as a date for some event might be considered. BP said as representative of Sudbourne, virtually no visibilty in his area but thought that there was not enough yet to say to people and it was not now a good time of year to raise the issue. So if it would work timing-wise something after the next meeting might work, start afresh and not worry about has happened in the past. It was agreed do nothing until the autumn may be after AOCP approval, but it was worth thinking about possible dates and communications and feedback options well before works starts on the ground.
ii. AMcD wondered if there was some possible link with parishes via their Emergency Plans. It was agreed that was a potentially useful route of communication. Noted that Sudbourne and Orford were currently working on a joint emergency plan.
8. Finance.
AA reported that so far £490 had been spent on website costs, £13,987 remained in the Building Society, of that just over £5000 was restricted to saltings works but that left the rest available for communications and meetings in relation to the roll-out of the new programme.
9. Officers
FB said there had only been two informal inquiries about possible new officers and no one offering to stand. In the interests of continuity during the development of the new 5-year programme she, AA and CG would be prepared to continue. EG proposed that FB be elected as Chairman, AA as Honorary Secretary and CG as Treasurer, and AMcD seconded that. The meeting agreed unanimously to the proposal. FB pointed out that the vacancy for a Vice Chairman still existed should anyone want to get involved in AOCP matters.
10. Any other business
Julia Ewart said that on the recently elected Suffolk County Council 41 members were new to Council work and don’t know this area at all. She offered to set up an information/ show and tell session where Councilors could hear about the work for and needs of the Alde and Ore Estuary. AOCP, AOET, ESWMB and EA all said they would be happy to speak and attend such an event.
11. Date of Next Meeting: the next quarterly meeting of the AOCP could be on either Thursday 22 or 29 October 2026 at 6.30pm, location to be announced. This might change if emerging results requiring consultation on development of priorities of work on defences required a different date.
6 July 2026
.
