Consideration of coastal risk in the Irish spatial planning process

The vulnerability of coastal areas to associated hazards is increasing due to population growth, development pressure and climate change. It is incumbent on coastal governance regimes to address the vulnerability of coastal inhabitants to these hazards. This is especially so at the local level where development planning and control has a direct impact on the vulnerability of coastal communities. To reduce the vulnerability of coastal populations, risk mitigation and adaptation strategies need to be built into local spatial planning processes. Local government, however, operates within a complex hierarchal governance framework which may promote or limit particular actions. It is important, therefore, to understand how local coastal planning practices are shaped by national and supranational entities. Local governments also have to respond to the demands of local populations. Consequently, it is important to understand local populations’ perceptions of coastal risk and its management. Adopting an in-depth study of coastal planning in County Mayo, Ireland, this paper evaluates: (a) how European and national policies and legislation shape coastal risk management at local level; (b) the incorporation of risk management strategies into local plans; and (c) local perception of coastal risks and risk management. Despite a strong steer from supranational and national legislation and policy, statutory local plans are found to be lacking in appropriate risk mitigation or adaptation strategies. Local residents appear to be lulled into a sense of complacency towards these risks because of the low level of attention afforded to them by the local planning authorities. To avoid potentially disastrous consequences for local residents and businesses, it is imperative that this situation is redressed urgently. Based on our analysis, we recommend: the development and implementation of a national ICZM strategy, supported by detailed local ICZM plans; and obliging local government to address known risks in their plans rather than defer them to project level decision making.

Challenging assumptions of future coastal habitat development around the UK

One habitat management requirement forced by 21st century relative sea-level rise (RSLR), will be the need to re-comprehend the dimensions of long-term transgressive behaviour of coastal systems being forced by such RSLR. Fresh approaches to the conceptual modelling and subsequent implementation of new coastal and peri-marine habitats will be required. There is concern that existing approaches to forecasting coastal systems development (and by implication their associated scarce coastal habitats) over the next century depend on a certain premise of orderly spatial succession of habitats. This assumption is shown to be questionable given the possible future rates of RSLR, magnitude of shoreline retreat and the lack of coastal sediment to maintain the protective morphologies to low-energy coastal habitats. Of these issues, sediment deficiency is regarded as one of the major problem for future habitat development. Examples of contemporary behaviour of UK coasts show evidence of coastal sediment starvation resulting from relatively stable RSLR, anthropogenic sealing of coastal sources, and intercepted coastal sediment pathways, which together force segmentation of coastal systems. From these examples key principles are deduced which may prejudice the existence of future habitats: accelerated future sediment demand due to RSLR may not be met by supply and, if short- to medium-term hold-the-line policies predominate, long-term strategies for managed realignment and habitat enhancement may prove impossible goals. Methods of contemporary sediment husbandry may help sustain some habitats in place but otherwise, instead of integrated coastal organization, managers may need to consider coastal breakdown, segmentation and habitat reduction as the basis of 21st century coastal evolution and planning.

Commodification of retirement and the emergence of rural gated communities: The associated challenges for rural planning

Abstract:
This paper combines demographic ageing and retirement lifestyles with rural in-migration processes and suggests the emergence of a specific rural form of gated community; namely, park homes. All year round or permanent (as opposed to seasonal) residential mobile homes (resembling detached bungalows in design and appearance) are commonly referred to as 'park homes'. With a growing proportion of the UK population aged 65 and over, combined with increasing longevity, meeting the residential preferences and lifestyle aspirations of an ageing population is potentially 'big business' for the private sector. Park home living, with their resident age restrictions (normally 50 years and over), is increasingly marketed as a retirement option in rural and coastal locations of the UK. However, many areas are often remote with declining populations and limited community services. Operators have sought to tap into retiree aspirations for a 'place in the country' and 'sell' the concept of park home living as a specific form of housing, community and lifestyle. Park homes are frequently marketed as a means to release equity from the sale of a large family home to fund a retirement lifestyle and as friendly communities of like-minded people, always willing to lend support or provide assistance if required. The physical and social composition of such sites represent a form of rural gated community. This paper seeks to identify the rural planning issues which emerge from such developments and asks: who are moving to park home sites and why? do park homes provide those who otherwise could not afford a 'place in the country' the option of rural living? does park home living live-up to residents' expectations of the rural idyll or retirement lifestyle? do they give rise to issues of gentrification and geriatrification of the countryside? what are the prospects for residents to 'age in place'? might ageing residents become financially trapped in such developments giving rise to park ghettoization? what are the associated challenges for rural policy-makers and public service providers?