It says. "However, they have
provided protection and reduced risk from flooding, allowing
activities to go on uninterrupted in the built environment."
It suggests that some of the problems might be averted by taking an
over-arching view of the problem, rather than addressing localized
But the report cautions that this is likely the remain a costly and
difficult approach - though imaginative solutions such as allowing
developers to build shoreline leisure facilities on top of defences
at the price of picking up a share of the bill might offset some of
the costs to the public purse.
The final option - attack - on the face of it sounds
But, according to the report, engineering has moved on since the
days of King Canute and there are opportunities to build out into
the sea, as demonstrated elsewhere in the world. "There is massive
development potential to be gained for coastal cities by building
out onto the water," says the report.
"This further reduces the need to sprawl into the countryside and
ensures their sustained social and economic vitality. Although it
leaves parts of the city still vulnerable to flooding, can the long
term benefit of new development outweigh this risk?"
It cites examples of how man has lived with water for centuries,
from stilted structures to land reclamation.
These strategies of Attack could unlock a vital planning tool and
give flexibility to our extremely dynamic 21st century cities,"
argues the report.
"Moreover, it could encourage a new breed of developers to fill
this gap as demand for the prime waterfront sites grows. This
commercial competition will need to be matched in long-term
management and responsibility.
"If new development in coastal cities starts
to prepare for rising sea-levels now, the livelihood of the city
could be maintained for generations to come."
its points, the report also looks at what might happen if two
flood-prone coastal cities - Hull and Portsmouth - each chose to
retreat, defend or attack.
The full report can be viewed here