Track coastal protection through completion and upkeep

The problem and who is affected

Portsmouth is a low-lying island city. In June 2026 the Environment Agency placed 2,849 properties in its highest river and sea flood-risk band. Two large schemes are rebuilding the defences, but their progress is spread across separate websites, and the dates do not always match. Nothing published in one place shows who inspects the finished defences, how upkeep is paid for or how much risk is left once building stops.

Who is affected: Residents, businesses and visitors in Southsea, Eastney, Hilsea, Tipner, Anchorage Park and Milton. It also affects people who use the seafront paths, roads and beaches during works, including disabled people who need step-free routes. Wildlife sites and listed heritage along the shore are affected too.

What this would change

Aim: Make it easy for anyone to see, for each stretch of coast, whether the new defence is designed, being built, finished, inspected and maintained, who is responsible, and what flood risk remains.

What success would mean: Every Southsea frontage and North Portsea phase has a dated public status that matches the scheme records. The bodies responsible publish their inspection and maintenance arrangements and the funding source for upkeep. Modelled flood risk is reported before and after completion, with an explanation of what changed. No numeric risk-reduction target is proposed here because no published post-scheme baseline was found.

Build and publish a single coastal delivery register covering both schemes. For each frontage or phase it records the location, design stage, construction dates, closures and diversions, completion evidence and the body that will own and maintain the asset. Add how and how often it will be inspected, and the funding route for upkeep. Separately, ask the Environment Agency to explain when completed defences are reflected in its national flood-risk maps. Ask the council to report each year on maintenance carried out, path accessibility and how habitat measures are doing.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed), as the lead authority for both schemes, with Coastal Partners preparing the register. Partners: Coastal Partners (delivery partnership), Environment Agency (grant funder and national flood-risk mapping), VSBW joint venture and Knights Brown (scheme contractors, for construction status only), Ministry of Defence (owner of some Portsea Island frontage defences), Historic England and Natural England (heritage and habitat advice), SSE (cable works affecting Ports Creek completion).

Powers: Under the Coast Protection Act 1949, section 4, a coastal erosion risk management authority may carry out coast protection work it judges necessary to protect land in its area (cpa-1949-s4). The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 names the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, water companies and highway authorities as risk management authorities (fwma-2010-s6). The council can publish its own scheme information without new powers. It cannot require the Environment Agency to change national maps on a timetable, and it does not control defences owned by the Ministry of Defence. The North Solent Shoreline Management Plan says most open-coast defences on Portsea Island are maintained by the local authority, and others by the Ministry of Defence (smp-5api02).

Options

• Current approach: Keep the current scheme updates. Each scheme runs its own website, bulletins and press releases. This works for construction news but does not join the two schemes, does not show upkeep or inspections, and has left some council pages out of date.
• Proposed response: One public coastal delivery and upkeep register. A single page or dataset listing every frontage and phase, with its stage, dates, owner, inspection regime, upkeep funding and accessibility. It would be updated when a stage changes and reviewed each year.
• Alternative: Annual coastal assurance report to councillors. A yearly report to a council committee covering completion, inspection results, maintenance spend and residual risk. This gives formal scrutiny but updates less often than a live register.
• Alternative: Independent condition survey after each scheme finishes. Commission an independent survey of all new defences when each scheme completes, then publish a summary. This gives stronger assurance but has a cost that has not been estimated.

The choice depends on things not yet known: what inspection and maintenance arrangements already exist but are unpublished, what the Environment Agency already records about council-owned defences, and the cost of a register or independent survey. If complete upkeep records already exist, publishing them may be enough. If they do not, a survey may be needed first.

Delivery plan

A first practical step: Anyone, including UK Facts, can compile the frontage list from the two scheme websites today. The council could publish it as a single table without any new decision, and mark which upkeep and inspection fields are still unknown.

Costs and funding

One-off costs

Not costed. Compiling a register is mainly staff time. An independent condition survey would cost more, but no estimate was found.

Recurring costs

Not costed. Yearly upkeep of the new defences is a real cost, but no published figure was found.

Capital or revenue

The schemes themselves are capital projects. Register upkeep and defence maintenance would mostly be revenue costs, so they cannot be paid from the capital build budgets.

Funding status

The build schemes are funded mainly by government flood-defence grant through the Environment Agency. No funding is identified for this proposal or for long-term upkeep.

Affordability

Unknown. The council's budget papers would need to show whether upkeep is already provided for.

Costing still needed

Get the asset owners' maintenance plans and whole-life cost estimates from the scheme business cases. Price a register (staff time) and an independent survey, separately.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Residents could check progress and upkeep in one place. Gaps in maintenance funding could be spotted before defences degrade. Councillors and funders would have a clear record. The benefit is better information and accountability. This proposal does not itself reduce flood risk.

Risks:

• Completion dates keep moving, for example because of third-party works such as SSE's cable installation at Peronne Road Bridge.
• Maintenance records may be held by several owners in different formats, so the register could be incomplete.
• Readers may treat scheme protection claims, such as homes protected, as measured outcomes rather than design aims.
• National flood-risk maps may lag behind completed works, so before-and-after comparisons could mislead.
• Publishing detailed asset information may raise security concerns for some sites.

Who could gain or lose: People in the most exposed low-lying streets and those who rely on accessible seafront routes would gain most from clear information. Businesses on the seafront bear disruption during works. Upkeep costs fall on council budgets and so on all council taxpayers, while protection is concentrated in flood-prone areas.

Environment: Both schemes include habitat measures. Ports Creek has reedbeds, native planting and moat dredging, and Southsea has new planting. The shoreline plan warns that keeping defences can narrow and lower beaches, so beach management matters. Works sit next to protected harbour habitats.

Capacity: Coastal Partners already reports on both schemes. A register mainly needs coordination and data from the owners of defences. Inspection and maintenance capacity after completion is unknown.

How to judge progress

Reassess when: When either scheme reports full completion, when the Environment Agency republishes properties-at-risk figures, or when the shoreline management plan or national flood maps are updated.

Where things stand

What is known:

• In June 2026, 2,849 Portsmouth properties were in the high river and sea flood-risk band and 11,827 were in any band, allowing for current defences.
• The Southsea scheme runs 4.5 km from Old Portsmouth to Eastney. Four of its seven listed sections were shown as completed on 2 November 2026.
• Frontage 6 (South Parade Pier to St George's Road) is expected to start in spring 2027 and finish in late summer 2028. Clarence Pier is still in final design, listed for 2027 to 2028.
• The North Portsea scheme covers 8.4 km from Tipner to Milton. Most of its final phase opened on 23 October 2026, with full completion expected in the second half of 2027.
• The government allocated an indicative £10.318 million in 2026/27 to the Southsea scheme.
• The shoreline plan's policy for the Southsea open coast is to hold the line to 2105.

What is not known:

• Who will inspect each completed defence, how often, and whether results will be published.
• The yearly cost of maintaining the new defences and which budget pays for it.
• How much modelled flood risk remains once each scheme is complete, and when national maps will reflect the new defences.
• The current total cost and funding split for each scheme. The Southsea scheme's own pages give both 'more than £185M' and '£180m+'.
• Whether North Portsea phase 5 still has government funding in 2026/27 under another project name.

Decisions needed:

• Whether the council will publish a joint register for both schemes.
• Which body will report inspection and maintenance for each asset, including those owned by the Ministry of Defence.
• How long-term upkeep will be funded and shown in the council budget.

Existing work:

• Southsea Coastal Scheme (Flood Cell 1): Frontages 1, 3, 4 and 5 West completed; Frontage 5 East under way (2025 to 2027); Frontages 2 and 6 planned for 2027 to 2028: In construction (as of 2026-11-02).
• North Portsea Coastal Scheme: phases 1 to 4 completed (2015 to 2024); phase 5 Ports Creek and Hilsea Lines mostly open, with completion expected in the second half of 2027: In construction, mostly open (as of 2026-10-23).
• North Solent Shoreline Management Plan, policy unit 5API02 (Langstone Harbour entrance to Portsmouth Harbour entrance): hold the line in all three periods to 2105: Adopted policy (as of 2026-11-02).
• Environment Agency Farlington Marshes embankment repairs and flood scheme (allocations for 2026/27): Funded for 2026/27 (indicative) (as of 2026-03-20).

UK Facts context: Portsmouth development plan (UK Facts local page) (A local page that covers the Southsea Coastal Scheme as a regeneration and flood-defence project. It is local context, not a national assessment.)

Next review: When the North Portsea scheme announces full completion (expected second half of 2027), when Southsea Frontage 6 starts (expected spring 2027), or when the Environment Agency next republishes properties-at-risk figures, whichever comes first.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

Where earlier ideas went

• coastal-delivery (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. All three stages (now, next and longer term), the measure and the baseline are kept. The baseline is re-verified (2,849 properties). The 'not a beneficiary count' caveat is kept in the baseline note. The stages are expanded into delivery tasks, evaluation rows and the frontage list in existing work. Not carried forward: The cost line 'Use each scheme's published budget' is replaced. The Southsea scheme's own pages give two different totals, so no single budget is shown as fact; the one-year £10.318 million government allocation is shown instead.