Sediment recharge at Kellow Sands: the 2025/26 placement
\nPrepared by the technical secretariat for the Partnership Board \u00b7 12 February 2026
\nThe Partnership has placed dredged sand on the upper foreshore at Kellow Sands in each of the
last three winters, under the standing consent granted in 2021 and the method agreed after the
2023 trial. The purpose is to slow the loss of intertidal in front of the saltmarsh, which the 2017
study put at rather more than a metre a year at the northern end.
The material is a by-product of maintenance dredging the Harbour Board carries out anyway.
Placing it on the foreshore rather than at the licensed offshore site is cheaper for the Board and
useful to the Partnership, and the arrangement has run without difficulty since 2021.
The standing consent granted in 2021 runs to March 2029 and covers placement of up to 25,000
cubic metres a winter at the two locations shown in the consent drawing. It carries eleven
conditions, of which two bear on the operation: placement is not permitted between 1 March
and 31 August, and the Partnership must notify the regulator seven days before a campaign
begins.
Both conditions were met this winter. The notification for the November start was sent on 28
October and acknowledged, and the January loads fell within the same campaign and needed no
further notice. The regulator inspected once, on 4 December, and raised nothing.
The material comes from the Harbour Board's maintenance dredging, which runs on a three-year
cycle: the Vardenne Channel and the approach to the quay every year, the bar every second year,
and the berths at Marnhead in the third. The volume available to the Partnership therefore varies
with the cycle as well as with the winter, and the largest volumes fall in the years the bar is cut.
This was a channel-and-approach year, which is the smaller of the three. The Board's dredger
worked twenty-two days in the estuary between October and January against thirty-one in the
previous season, and the eight loads placed at Kellow Sands were what the programme could
offer rather than what the Partnership asked for. The secretariat does not regard the difference
as material at this stage of the trial.
The Partnership placed 18,400 cubic metres of dredged sand on the upper foreshore at Kellow
Sands between 6 November 2025 and 22 January 2026. The material came from maintenance
dredging of the Vardenne Channel and was placed in eight loads under the standing consent
granted in 2021. This note records what was placed, what it cost, and what the winter surveys
Placement followed the method agreed after the 2023 trial. Each load was discharged at high
water on a rising spring tide, at a single point some forty metres seaward of the saltmarsh edge,
and left to redistribute without machinery working on the flat. The intention is that the material
moves landward under wave action over two or three winters rather than being spread
mechanically, which the trial showed disturbs the buried peat horizon at Thrimby Point.
Each load is brought up on the flood and held off the placement point until high water. Discharge
takes between forty minutes and an hour and a quarter depending on the load, and the vessel is
off the flat and back in the channel within the hour after. The Partnership's own staff attend
every discharge from the shore and record the time, the state of the tide, the wind and anything
of note; the records are held with the placement file.
The discharge point is fixed by two marks on the seawall and is the same point used in each of the
three winters. Holding to it matters more than the volume: the whole intention of the method is
that a single deposit redistributes under wave action, and a deposit spread over a wider footprint
would not be the method the Partnership undertook to use.
Two discharges were stood down on the day for weather, one in November for wind and one in
January for a swell running into the bay, and both were made good later in the same tide
window. A stand down costs the Partnership nothing under the current rates, which is an
arrangement the secretariat would like to keep in the fourth season and expects to have to argue
for.
The placed volume is close to the plan. One load was reduced because the dredger was released
early to work at Marnhead, and the shortfall of roughly 600 cubic metres was not made up. Costs
came to \u00a3164,300 against a budget of \u00a3172,000, of which \u00a331,500 was the Partnership's own
contribution and the balance was met from the coastal resilience allocation held by the Braithe
Harbour Board.
The figure of \u00a3164,300 is made up of four parts. Placement itself was \u00a3118,700, charged on the
load rather than the cubic metre and therefore unaffected by the load that came in light.
Mobilisation and demobilisation of the discharge gear was \u00a321,400, which is a fixed cost and the
reason a short season is proportionately dearer than a long one. The survey work, including the
January resurvey and the laboratory's particle size analysis, was \u00a316,900. The balance, \u00a37,300, is
the secretariat's own time at the rate agreed with the Board in 2023.
Against a budget of \u00a3172,000 that leaves \u00a37,700 unspent, which the secretariat proposes be
carried to the 2026/27 programme rather than returned, on the ground that the fourth season's
mobilisation charge will fall in a year when the dredging cycle offers less material. The Board's
agreement to the carry-forward is one of the decisions sought below.
Two costs are not in the figure and should be understood. The Harbour Board's dredging is not
charged to the Partnership at all: the material would be lifted whether or not it were placed at
Kellow Sands, and only the difference in disposal is a cost to anybody. And the bird counts are
made by the Vellamy Society without charge, which the Partnership has recorded before and
records again here.
Surveys have been run on the four fixed transects established in 2019. The January survey shows
accretion on transects two and three, no measurable change on transect one, and a small loss on
transect four, which sits closest to the training wall. None of these differences is yet outside the
range recorded between winters before any placement took place, and the Partnership's advisers
have asked that no conclusion be drawn before the third winter.
The survey measures the profile of four fixed lines to a tolerance the method puts at fifteen
millimetres, which is a good deal finer than the changes being looked for. Its limitation is not
precision but coverage: four lines describe four lines, and the flat between them is inferred. A
change concentrated between two transects would be invisible, and a change on a transect
would be reported as though it were general.
That is a known limitation of the design rather than a fault in this winter's work, and it was
accepted in 2019 as the price of a series that could be repeated cheaply every January. The
alternative, a full topographic survey of the intertidal, was quoted in 2019 at eleven thousand
pounds a visit and would not have been repeated annually. The Board may wish to revisit that at
the end of the trial and not before.
The Partnership's advisers were asked in December for a view on whether three winters of survey
would support a conclusion. Their answer, which the secretariat accepts, is that it will not: the
between-winter variation recorded before placement began is of the same order as the change
measured since, and separating the two needs either a longer run or a control transect outside
the placement footprint.
A control transect was considered in 2019 and rejected on cost. The advisers have suggested it be
reconsidered, at an estimated four thousand pounds a year including the laboratory work, and
the secretariat will bring that to the Board with the 2026/27 programme.
The buried peat horizon at Thrimby Point is the reason the method is what it is. It is a designated
feature, it lies under between a third and a metre of sand depending on the state of the
foreshore, and the 2023 trial showed that a tracked machine working the flat disturbs it. The
Partnership's undertaking not to work machinery on the flat was given to the regulator in writing
and is a condition of nothing: it is a voluntary undertaking, which the secretariat mentions
because voluntary undertakings are the easiest thing to forget.
The horizon is inspected each spring at three points by the Partnership's ecologist, and the 2025
inspection found no exposure and no evidence of disturbance. The 2026 inspection is due in April.
Nothing in the placement method should affect it, and the inspection exists to establish that
rather than to look for a problem anybody expects.
Turbidity in the creek at Vardenne rose after each discharge and fell back within a working day,
which is the pattern of the previous two winters and was expected. Suspended solids at the
Vardenne Quay station were reported at 41.6 milligrams a litre two days after the last placement,
against figures below thirty for December and January. The laboratory's note attributes the
difference to the placement and the state of the tide, and the secretariat accepts that.
No other determination moved outside its usual range, and the programme's quarterly summary
will report the winter as unremarkable on water quality. The Partnership has not been asked for
turbidity monitoring during discharge and does not propose to offer it: the creek is not a
designated water, the effect is short-lived, and the cost would come out of the survey budget,
which is the part of the programme that answers the question the trial is asking.
Vegetation on the marsh edge was mapped in October, before placement, on the line used since
2019. The mapped edge has moved seaward by a little under two metres at its northern end and
is unchanged elsewhere, which is within the variation the ecologist records between years and is
not offered as an effect of the recharge. The 1998 edge, which the advisers use as the reference,
is some eleven metres landward of the present one at the same point.
No change was recorded in the extent of the pioneer zone, which is the part of the marsh a
sediment supply would be expected to affect first and the part the Partnership watches most
closely. The ecologist's view, recorded in her October note, is that three winters is too short a
period to expect a vegetation response at all.
Two matters were raised by residents during the placement period. The first concerned lorry
movements on Kellow Lane, which were outside the hours set in the consent on three days in
December; the contractor has accepted this and the hours have been restated in the site
instructions. The second concerned turbidity in the creek at Vardenne, which was visible for
several hours after each discharge and is expected, but which had not been explained locally in
advance.
The bird counts made during the placement window show no change in the numbers of wintering
dunlin and grey plover on the flats north of the placement point. Counts were made by the
Vellamy Society under its usual arrangement with the Partnership and are reported separately.
The Society has asked whether placement can be kept outside the January count period in future
years, and the secretariat sees no operational reason why it cannot.
The Partnership held a drop-in session at the Assembly Rooms on 18 October, before the season
began, at which the programme, the consent conditions and the lorry route were explained.
Twenty-three people came, most of them from Kellow Lane, and the note of the session is on the
file. The two matters raised in December had both been raised at the session, which the
secretariat takes as a sign that the session worked and that the follow-through did not.
For the fourth season the secretariat proposes a letter to every household on Kellow Lane a
fortnight before the first load, giving the dates, the hours and a telephone number that is
answered. That is what was missing this winter: the information existed and the route to it did
not, and a resident who has to find the secretariat to ask about turbidity in their own creek has
been let down whatever the answer turns out to be.
The contractor performed the placement to the specification and without incident on the water.
The failure was on land: lorry movements on Kellow Lane outside the hours set in the consent on
three days in December, which the contractor has accepted in writing. The site instructions have
been reissued with the hours in bold on the first page, and the Partnership's site staff have been
asked to record the first and last movement of every day whether or not anything appears wrong.
The final account has been received and is \u00a33,100 above the interim valuation, on account of the
two weather stand-downs and a claim for standing time on 14 January which the secretariat has
rejected. The account is expected to settle at or near the interim figure and within the budget
reported above. The Board will be told if it does not.
The 2023 trial compared mechanical spreading against single-point discharge on two transects,
and the finding that settled the method was not about sediment at all: spreading disturbed the
buried peat horizon at Thrimby Point, which is a designated feature, and the Partnership
undertook not to work machinery on the flat again. Single-point discharge was the alternative
rather than the preference.
Three winters on, the case for the method is still the peat rather than the sediment. The advisers'
\n\nview is that mechanical spreading would probably move material landward faster. The
Partnership is not able to do it, and the question does not arise unless the undertaking is
revisited.
Risks
\nTwo risks are worth recording. The first is the dredging contract: if the Harbour Board's retender
in June produces a contractor without a suitable dredger, the material may not be available and
the winter's placement would not happen. The second is the peat undertaking, which constrains
the method to single-point discharge and would have to be revisited if the surveys eventually
show that the method does not work.
The programme is authorised by the Board annually and delivered by the secretariat under the
standing consent. The regulator is notified before each campaign and inspects at its own
discretion; the Harbour Board is a party to the arrangement for the material and receives the
quarterly report; and the Partnership's advisers are engaged for the survey and for an annual
opinion on what the series will support.
What the arrangement lacks is a point at which the trial is formally reviewed against a decision.
The secretariat proposes that the fifth winter be that point, that the review be commissioned in
the autumn of 2027 rather than assembled from the annual reports, and that the Board agree the
questions the review is to answer at the same meeting as it agrees the fourth season. A trial
without a decision at the end of it becomes a programme by default, which is not what was
agreed in 2021.
Four courses are open for the fourth winter. The first is to continue as at present, which costs
what this winter cost, adds a fourth year to the series and answers nothing new. The second is to
continue and add a control transect outside the placement footprint, at an estimated four
thousand pounds a year, which is the advisers' recommendation and the only one of the four that
improves what the series can show.
The third is to pause placement for a winter while continuing the survey, which would give a year
of recovery data and would probably end the arrangement with the Harbour Board, whose
dredger cannot be held for a season that may not happen. The fourth is to stop, which the
secretariat does not recommend and sets out only because a trial that cannot be stopped was
never a trial.
The secretariat's view is the second course. The marginal cost is small against the programme, the
control transect answers the advisers' objection to the design rather than merely adding to the
run, and it can be established in the same January window by the same crew.
The financial outlook
\nThe coastal resilience allocation held by the Harbour Board runs to March 2029 and has \u00a3340,000
uncommitted against it. On the present rate of spend, and allowing for the control transect and
for inflation on the dredging contract, the allocation covers the trial to its conclusion with about a
season's contingency in hand. It does not cover a programme of works if the trial concludes in
favour of one, and the Partnership should not proceed as though it did.
The dredging contract is retendered in June and is the largest uncertainty in the figure. The
Board's own estimate is an increase of between eight and fourteen per cent, which on this
winter's placement charge would be between nine and seventeen thousand pounds. The
secretariat will report the outcome with the September programme paper.
Work remaining this winter
\nThe work remaining this winter is limited to the February profile survey, which was postponed by
weather and is now expected in the week of 23 February, and the reconciliation of the
contractor's final account. Neither is expected to change the position set out above.
Next winter
\nThe 2026/27 programme will be put to the Board in September with the contractor's rates for a
fourth season. The secretariat expects the volume to be similar and the cost to rise with the
dredging contract, which is retendered in June.
Recommendation
\nThe Board is asked to note this record of the winter's placement, to agree that the January count
period is avoided in the 2026/27 programme, and to confirm that the third winter of survey
should be completed before the method is reviewed.
Enquiries to the technical secretariat, Braithe Estuary Partnership, Estuary House, Vardenne Quay, Braithe BR3 4LN.
\n", "markdown": "Braithe Estuary Partnership\n\nBriefing note BEP/BN/2026/04\n\nSediment recharge at Kellow Sands: the 2025/26 placement\n\nPrepared by the technical secretariat for the Partnership Board \u00b7 12 February 2026\n\n# Background\n\nThe Partnership has placed dredged sand on the upper foreshore at Kellow Sands in each of the\nlast three winters, under the standing consent granted in 2021 and the method agreed after the\n2023 trial. The purpose is to slow the loss of intertidal in front of the saltmarsh, which the 2017\nstudy put at rather more than a metre a year at the northern end.\n\nThe material is a by-product of maintenance dredging the Harbour Board carries out anyway.\nPlacing it on the foreshore rather than at the licensed offshore site is cheaper for the Board and\nuseful to the Partnership, and the arrangement has run without difficulty since 2021.\n\n# The consent position\n\nThe standing consent granted in 2021 runs to March 2029 and covers placement of up to 25,000\ncubic metres a winter at the two locations shown in the consent drawing. It carries eleven\nconditions, of which two bear on the operation: placement is not permitted between 1 March\nand 31 August, and the Partnership must notify the regulator seven days before a campaign\nbegins.\n\nBoth conditions were met this winter. The notification for the November start was sent on 28\nOctober and acknowledged, and the January loads fell within the same campaign and needed no\nfurther notice. The regulator inspected once, on 4 December, and raised nothing.\n\n# The dredging programme\n\nThe material comes from the Harbour Board's maintenance dredging, which runs on a three-year\ncycle: the Vardenne Channel and the approach to the quay every year, the bar every second year,\nand the berths at Marnhead in the third. The volume available to the Partnership therefore varies\nwith the cycle as well as with the winter, and the largest volumes fall in the years the bar is cut.\n\nThis was a channel-and-approach year, which is the smaller of the three. The Board's dredger\nworked twenty-two days in the estuary between October and January against thirty-one in the\nprevious season, and the eight loads placed at Kellow Sands were what the programme could\noffer rather than what the Partnership asked for. The secretariat does not regard the difference\nas material at this stage of the trial.\n\n# The winter's placement\n\nThe Partnership placed 18,400 cubic metres of dredged sand on the upper foreshore at Kellow\nSands between 6 November 2025 and 22 January 2026. The material came from maintenance\ndredging of the Vardenne Channel and was placed in eight loads under the standing consent\ngranted in 2021. This note records what was placed, what it cost, and what the winter surveys\n\nPage 1 of 7\n\nBraithe Estuary Partnership\nhave shown so far.\n\nBriefing note BEP/BN/2026/04\n\nPlacement followed the method agreed after the 2023 trial. Each load was discharged at high\nwater on a rising spring tide, at a single point some forty metres seaward of the saltmarsh edge,\nand left to redistribute without machinery working on the flat. The intention is that the material\nmoves landward under wave action over two or three winters rather than being spread\nmechanically, which the trial showed disturbs the buried peat horizon at Thrimby Point.\n\n# How the material is placed\n\nEach load is brought up on the flood and held off the placement point until high water. Discharge\ntakes between forty minutes and an hour and a quarter depending on the load, and the vessel is\noff the flat and back in the channel within the hour after. The Partnership's own staff attend\nevery discharge from the shore and record the time, the state of the tide, the wind and anything\nof note; the records are held with the placement file.\n\nThe discharge point is fixed by two marks on the seawall and is the same point used in each of the\nthree winters. Holding to it matters more than the volume: the whole intention of the method is\nthat a single deposit redistributes under wave action, and a deposit spread over a wider footprint\nwould not be the method the Partnership undertook to use.\n\nTwo discharges were stood down on the day for weather, one in November for wind and one in\nJanuary for a swell running into the bay, and both were made good later in the same tide\nwindow. A stand down costs the Partnership nothing under the current rates, which is an\narrangement the secretariat would like to keep in the fourth season and expects to have to argue\nfor.\n\n# Volume and cost\n\nThe placed volume is close to the plan. One load was reduced because the dredger was released\nearly to work at Marnhead, and the shortfall of roughly 600 cubic metres was not made up. Costs\ncame to \u00a3164,300 against a budget of \u00a3172,000, of which \u00a331,500 was the Partnership's own\ncontribution and the balance was met from the coastal resilience allocation held by the Braithe\nHarbour Board.\n\n# The cost in detail\n\nThe figure of \u00a3164,300 is made up of four parts. Placement itself was \u00a3118,700, charged on the\nload rather than the cubic metre and therefore unaffected by the load that came in light.\nMobilisation and demobilisation of the discharge gear was \u00a321,400, which is a fixed cost and the\nreason a short season is proportionately dearer than a long one. The survey work, including the\nJanuary resurvey and the laboratory's particle size analysis, was \u00a316,900. The balance, \u00a37,300, is\nthe secretariat's own time at the rate agreed with the Board in 2023.\n\nAgainst a budget of \u00a3172,000 that leaves \u00a37,700 unspent, which the secretariat proposes be\ncarried to the 2026/27 programme rather than returned, on the ground that the fourth season's\n\nPage 2 of 7\n\nBraithe Estuary Partnership\n\nBriefing note BEP/BN/2026/04\n\nmobilisation charge will fall in a year when the dredging cycle offers less material. The Board's\nagreement to the carry-forward is one of the decisions sought below.\n\nTwo costs are not in the figure and should be understood. The Harbour Board's dredging is not\ncharged to the Partnership at all: the material would be lifted whether or not it were placed at\nKellow Sands, and only the difference in disposal is a cost to anybody. And the bird counts are\nmade by the Vellamy Society without charge, which the Partnership has recorded before and\nrecords again here.\n\n# What the surveys show\n\nSurveys have been run on the four fixed transects established in 2019. The January survey shows\naccretion on transects two and three, no measurable change on transect one, and a small loss on\ntransect four, which sits closest to the training wall. None of these differences is yet outside the\nrange recorded between winters before any placement took place, and the Partnership's advisers\nhave asked that no conclusion be drawn before the third winter.\n\n# What the survey can and cannot show\n\nThe survey measures the profile of four fixed lines to a tolerance the method puts at fifteen\nmillimetres, which is a good deal finer than the changes being looked for. Its limitation is not\nprecision but coverage: four lines describe four lines, and the flat between them is inferred. A\nchange concentrated between two transects would be invisible, and a change on a transect\nwould be reported as though it were general.\n\nThat is a known limitation of the design rather than a fault in this winter's work, and it was\naccepted in 2019 as the price of a series that could be repeated cheaply every January. The\nalternative, a full topographic survey of the intertidal, was quoted in 2019 at eleven thousand\npounds a visit and would not have been repeated annually. The Board may wish to revisit that at\nthe end of the trial and not before.\n\n# The advisers' position\n\nThe Partnership's advisers were asked in December for a view on whether three winters of survey\nwould support a conclusion. Their answer, which the secretariat accepts, is that it will not: the\nbetween-winter variation recorded before placement began is of the same order as the change\nmeasured since, and separating the two needs either a longer run or a control transect outside\nthe placement footprint.\n\nA control transect was considered in 2019 and rejected on cost. The advisers have suggested it be\nreconsidered, at an estimated four thousand pounds a year including the laboratory work, and\nthe secretariat will bring that to the Board with the 2026/27 programme.\n\nPage 3 of 7\n\nBraithe Estuary Partnership\n\nBriefing note BEP/BN/2026/04\n\n# The peat horizon at Thrimby Point\n\nThe buried peat horizon at Thrimby Point is the reason the method is what it is. It is a designated\nfeature, it lies under between a third and a metre of sand depending on the state of the\nforeshore, and the 2023 trial showed that a tracked machine working the flat disturbs it. The\nPartnership's undertaking not to work machinery on the flat was given to the regulator in writing\nand is a condition of nothing: it is a voluntary undertaking, which the secretariat mentions\nbecause voluntary undertakings are the easiest thing to forget.\n\nThe horizon is inspected each spring at three points by the Partnership's ecologist, and the 2025\ninspection found no exposure and no evidence of disturbance. The 2026 inspection is due in April.\nNothing in the placement method should affect it, and the inspection exists to establish that\nrather than to look for a problem anybody expects.\n\n# Water quality during placement\n\nTurbidity in the creek at Vardenne rose after each discharge and fell back within a working day,\nwhich is the pattern of the previous two winters and was expected. Suspended solids at the\nVardenne Quay station were reported at 41.6 milligrams a litre two days after the last placement,\nagainst figures below thirty for December and January. The laboratory's note attributes the\ndifference to the placement and the state of the tide, and the secretariat accepts that.\n\nNo other determination moved outside its usual range, and the programme's quarterly summary\nwill report the winter as unremarkable on water quality. The Partnership has not been asked for\nturbidity monitoring during discharge and does not propose to offer it: the creek is not a\ndesignated water, the effect is short-lived, and the cost would come out of the survey budget,\nwhich is the part of the programme that answers the question the trial is asking.\n\n# Birds and vegetation\n\nVegetation on the marsh edge was mapped in October, before placement, on the line used since\n2019. The mapped edge has moved seaward by a little under two metres at its northern end and\nis unchanged elsewhere, which is within the variation the ecologist records between years and is\nnot offered as an effect of the recharge. The 1998 edge, which the advisers use as the reference,\nis some eleven metres landward of the present one at the same point.\n\nNo change was recorded in the extent of the pioneer zone, which is the part of the marsh a\nsediment supply would be expected to affect first and the part the Partnership watches most\nclosely. The ecologist's view, recorded in her October note, is that three winters is too short a\nperiod to expect a vegetation response at all.\n\n# Matters raised locally\n\nTwo matters were raised by residents during the placement period. The first concerned lorry\nmovements on Kellow Lane, which were outside the hours set in the consent on three days in\nDecember; the contractor has accepted this and the hours have been restated in the site\n\nPage 4 of 7\n\nBraithe Estuary Partnership\n\nBriefing note BEP/BN/2026/04\n\ninstructions. The second concerned turbidity in the creek at Vardenne, which was visible for\nseveral hours after each discharge and is expected, but which had not been explained locally in\nadvance.\n\nThe bird counts made during the placement window show no change in the numbers of wintering\ndunlin and grey plover on the flats north of the placement point. Counts were made by the\nVellamy Society under its usual arrangement with the Partnership and are reported separately.\nThe Society has asked whether placement can be kept outside the January count period in future\nyears, and the secretariat sees no operational reason why it cannot.\n\n# Talking to people beforehand\n\nThe Partnership held a drop-in session at the Assembly Rooms on 18 October, before the season\nbegan, at which the programme, the consent conditions and the lorry route were explained.\nTwenty-three people came, most of them from Kellow Lane, and the note of the session is on the\nfile. The two matters raised in December had both been raised at the session, which the\nsecretariat takes as a sign that the session worked and that the follow-through did not.\n\nFor the fourth season the secretariat proposes a letter to every household on Kellow Lane a\nfortnight before the first load, giving the dates, the hours and a telephone number that is\nanswered. That is what was missing this winter: the information existed and the route to it did\nnot, and a resident who has to find the secretariat to ask about turbidity in their own creek has\nbeen let down whatever the answer turns out to be.\n\n# The contract and the contractor\n\nThe contractor performed the placement to the specification and without incident on the water.\nThe failure was on land: lorry movements on Kellow Lane outside the hours set in the consent on\nthree days in December, which the contractor has accepted in writing. The site instructions have\nbeen reissued with the hours in bold on the first page, and the Partnership's site staff have been\nasked to record the first and last movement of every day whether or not anything appears wrong.\n\nThe final account has been received and is \u00a33,100 above the interim valuation, on account of the\ntwo weather stand-downs and a claim for standing time on 14 January which the secretariat has\nrejected. The account is expected to settle at or near the interim figure and within the budget\nreported above. The Board will be told if it does not.\n\n# The trial method, three winters on\n\nThe 2023 trial compared mechanical spreading against single-point discharge on two transects,\nand the finding that settled the method was not about sediment at all: spreading disturbed the\nburied peat horizon at Thrimby Point, which is a designated feature, and the Partnership\nundertook not to work machinery on the flat again. Single-point discharge was the alternative\nrather than the preference.\n\nThree winters on, the case for the method is still the peat rather than the sediment. The advisers'\n\nPage 5 of 7\n\nBraithe Estuary Partnership\n\nBriefing note BEP/BN/2026/04\n\nview is that mechanical spreading would probably move material landward faster. The\nPartnership is not able to do it, and the question does not arise unless the undertaking is\nrevisited.\n\nRisks\n\nTwo risks are worth recording. The first is the dredging contract: if the Harbour Board's retender\nin June produces a contractor without a suitable dredger, the material may not be available and\nthe winter's placement would not happen. The second is the peat undertaking, which constrains\nthe method to single-point discharge and would have to be revisited if the surveys eventually\nshow that the method does not work.\n\n# How the programme is governed\n\nThe programme is authorised by the Board annually and delivered by the secretariat under the\nstanding consent. The regulator is notified before each campaign and inspects at its own\ndiscretion; the Harbour Board is a party to the arrangement for the material and receives the\nquarterly report; and the Partnership's advisers are engaged for the survey and for an annual\nopinion on what the series will support.\n\nWhat the arrangement lacks is a point at which the trial is formally reviewed against a decision.\nThe secretariat proposes that the fifth winter be that point, that the review be commissioned in\nthe autumn of 2027 rather than assembled from the annual reports, and that the Board agree the\nquestions the review is to answer at the same meeting as it agrees the fourth season. A trial\nwithout a decision at the end of it becomes a programme by default, which is not what was\nagreed in 2021.\n\n# Options for the fourth winter\n\nFour courses are open for the fourth winter. The first is to continue as at present, which costs\nwhat this winter cost, adds a fourth year to the series and answers nothing new. The second is to\ncontinue and add a control transect outside the placement footprint, at an estimated four\nthousand pounds a year, which is the advisers' recommendation and the only one of the four that\nimproves what the series can show.\n\nThe third is to pause placement for a winter while continuing the survey, which would give a year\nof recovery data and would probably end the arrangement with the Harbour Board, whose\ndredger cannot be held for a season that may not happen. The fourth is to stop, which the\nsecretariat does not recommend and sets out only because a trial that cannot be stopped was\nnever a trial.\n\nThe secretariat's view is the second course. The marginal cost is small against the programme, the\ncontrol transect answers the advisers' objection to the design rather than merely adding to the\nrun, and it can be established in the same January window by the same crew.\n\nPage 6 of 7\n\nBraithe Estuary Partnership\n\nBriefing note BEP/BN/2026/04\n\nThe financial outlook\n\nThe coastal resilience allocation held by the Harbour Board runs to March 2029 and has \u00a3340,000\nuncommitted against it. On the present rate of spend, and allowing for the control transect and\nfor inflation on the dredging contract, the allocation covers the trial to its conclusion with about a\nseason's contingency in hand. It does not cover a programme of works if the trial concludes in\nfavour of one, and the Partnership should not proceed as though it did.\n\nThe dredging contract is retendered in June and is the largest uncertainty in the figure. The\nBoard's own estimate is an increase of between eight and fourteen per cent, which on this\nwinter's placement charge would be between nine and seventeen thousand pounds. The\nsecretariat will report the outcome with the September programme paper.\n\nWork remaining this winter\n\nThe work remaining this winter is limited to the February profile survey, which was postponed by\nweather and is now expected in the week of 23 February, and the reconciliation of the\ncontractor's final account. Neither is expected to change the position set out above.\n\nNext winter\n\nThe 2026/27 programme will be put to the Board in September with the contractor's rates for a\nfourth season. The secretariat expects the volume to be similar and the cost to rise with the\ndredging contract, which is retendered in June.\n\nRecommendation\n\nThe Board is asked to note this record of the winter's placement, to agree that the January count\nperiod is avoided in the 2026/27 programme, and to confirm that the third winter of survey\nshould be completed before the method is reviewed.\n\nEnquiries to the technical secretariat, Braithe Estuary Partnership, Estuary House, Vardenne Quay, Braithe BR3 4LN.\n\nPage 7 of 7", "text": "" }, "elements": [ { "id": 0, "page": 1, "category": "header", "content": { "html": "Sediment recharge at Kellow Sands: the 2025/26 placement
", "markdown": "Sediment recharge at Kellow Sands: the 2025/26 placement", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.1152, "y": 0.0743 }, { "x": 0.83, "y": 0.0743 }, { "x": 0.83, "y": 0.0953 }, { "x": 0.1152, "y": 0.0953 } ] }, { "id": 3, "page": 1, "category": "paragraph", "content": { "html": "Prepared by the technical secretariat for the Partnership Board \u00b7 12 February 2026
", "markdown": "Prepared by the technical secretariat for the Partnership Board \u00b7 12 February 2026", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.1156, "y": 0.1066 }, { "x": 0.6908, "y": 0.1066 }, { "x": 0.6908, "y": 0.1206 }, { "x": 0.1156, "y": 0.1206 } ] }, { "id": 4, "page": 1, "category": "heading1", "content": { "html": "The Partnership has placed dredged sand on the upper foreshore at Kellow Sands in each of the
last three winters, under the standing consent granted in 2021 and the method agreed after the
2023 trial. The purpose is to slow the loss of intertidal in front of the saltmarsh, which the 2017
study put at rather more than a metre a year at the northern end.
The material is a by-product of maintenance dredging the Harbour Board carries out anyway.
Placing it on the foreshore rather than at the licensed offshore site is cheaper for the Board and
useful to the Partnership, and the arrangement has run without difficulty since 2021.
The standing consent granted in 2021 runs to March 2029 and covers placement of up to 25,000
cubic metres a winter at the two locations shown in the consent drawing. It carries eleven
conditions, of which two bear on the operation: placement is not permitted between 1 March
and 31 August, and the Partnership must notify the regulator seven days before a campaign
begins.
Both conditions were met this winter. The notification for the November start was sent on 28
October and acknowledged, and the January loads fell within the same campaign and needed no
further notice. The regulator inspected once, on 4 December, and raised nothing.
The material comes from the Harbour Board's maintenance dredging, which runs on a three-year
cycle: the Vardenne Channel and the approach to the quay every year, the bar every second year,
and the berths at Marnhead in the third. The volume available to the Partnership therefore varies
with the cycle as well as with the winter, and the largest volumes fall in the years the bar is cut.
This was a channel-and-approach year, which is the smaller of the three. The Board's dredger
worked twenty-two days in the estuary between October and January against thirty-one in the
previous season, and the eight loads placed at Kellow Sands were what the programme could
offer rather than what the Partnership asked for. The secretariat does not regard the difference
as material at this stage of the trial.
The Partnership placed 18,400 cubic metres of dredged sand on the upper foreshore at Kellow
Sands between 6 November 2025 and 22 January 2026. The material came from maintenance
dredging of the Vardenne Channel and was placed in eight loads under the standing consent
granted in 2021. This note records what was placed, what it cost, and what the winter surveys
Placement followed the method agreed after the 2023 trial. Each load was discharged at high
water on a rising spring tide, at a single point some forty metres seaward of the saltmarsh edge,
and left to redistribute without machinery working on the flat. The intention is that the material
moves landward under wave action over two or three winters rather than being spread
mechanically, which the trial showed disturbs the buried peat horizon at Thrimby Point.
Each load is brought up on the flood and held off the placement point until high water. Discharge
takes between forty minutes and an hour and a quarter depending on the load, and the vessel is
off the flat and back in the channel within the hour after. The Partnership's own staff attend
every discharge from the shore and record the time, the state of the tide, the wind and anything
of note; the records are held with the placement file.
The discharge point is fixed by two marks on the seawall and is the same point used in each of the
three winters. Holding to it matters more than the volume: the whole intention of the method is
that a single deposit redistributes under wave action, and a deposit spread over a wider footprint
would not be the method the Partnership undertook to use.
Two discharges were stood down on the day for weather, one in November for wind and one in
January for a swell running into the bay, and both were made good later in the same tide
window. A stand down costs the Partnership nothing under the current rates, which is an
arrangement the secretariat would like to keep in the fourth season and expects to have to argue
for.
The placed volume is close to the plan. One load was reduced because the dredger was released
early to work at Marnhead, and the shortfall of roughly 600 cubic metres was not made up. Costs
came to \u00a3164,300 against a budget of \u00a3172,000, of which \u00a331,500 was the Partnership's own
contribution and the balance was met from the coastal resilience allocation held by the Braithe
Harbour Board.
The figure of \u00a3164,300 is made up of four parts. Placement itself was \u00a3118,700, charged on the
load rather than the cubic metre and therefore unaffected by the load that came in light.
Mobilisation and demobilisation of the discharge gear was \u00a321,400, which is a fixed cost and the
reason a short season is proportionately dearer than a long one. The survey work, including the
January resurvey and the laboratory's particle size analysis, was \u00a316,900. The balance, \u00a37,300, is
the secretariat's own time at the rate agreed with the Board in 2023.
Against a budget of \u00a3172,000 that leaves \u00a37,700 unspent, which the secretariat proposes be
carried to the 2026/27 programme rather than returned, on the ground that the fourth season's
mobilisation charge will fall in a year when the dredging cycle offers less material. The Board's
agreement to the carry-forward is one of the decisions sought below.
Two costs are not in the figure and should be understood. The Harbour Board's dredging is not
charged to the Partnership at all: the material would be lifted whether or not it were placed at
Kellow Sands, and only the difference in disposal is a cost to anybody. And the bird counts are
made by the Vellamy Society without charge, which the Partnership has recorded before and
records again here.
Surveys have been run on the four fixed transects established in 2019. The January survey shows
accretion on transects two and three, no measurable change on transect one, and a small loss on
transect four, which sits closest to the training wall. None of these differences is yet outside the
range recorded between winters before any placement took place, and the Partnership's advisers
have asked that no conclusion be drawn before the third winter.
The survey measures the profile of four fixed lines to a tolerance the method puts at fifteen
millimetres, which is a good deal finer than the changes being looked for. Its limitation is not
precision but coverage: four lines describe four lines, and the flat between them is inferred. A
change concentrated between two transects would be invisible, and a change on a transect
would be reported as though it were general.
That is a known limitation of the design rather than a fault in this winter's work, and it was
accepted in 2019 as the price of a series that could be repeated cheaply every January. The
alternative, a full topographic survey of the intertidal, was quoted in 2019 at eleven thousand
pounds a visit and would not have been repeated annually. The Board may wish to revisit that at
the end of the trial and not before.
The Partnership's advisers were asked in December for a view on whether three winters of survey
would support a conclusion. Their answer, which the secretariat accepts, is that it will not: the
between-winter variation recorded before placement began is of the same order as the change
measured since, and separating the two needs either a longer run or a control transect outside
the placement footprint.
A control transect was considered in 2019 and rejected on cost. The advisers have suggested it be
reconsidered, at an estimated four thousand pounds a year including the laboratory work, and
the secretariat will bring that to the Board with the 2026/27 programme.
The buried peat horizon at Thrimby Point is the reason the method is what it is. It is a designated
feature, it lies under between a third and a metre of sand depending on the state of the
foreshore, and the 2023 trial showed that a tracked machine working the flat disturbs it. The
Partnership's undertaking not to work machinery on the flat was given to the regulator in writing
and is a condition of nothing: it is a voluntary undertaking, which the secretariat mentions
because voluntary undertakings are the easiest thing to forget.
The horizon is inspected each spring at three points by the Partnership's ecologist, and the 2025
inspection found no exposure and no evidence of disturbance. The 2026 inspection is due in April.
Nothing in the placement method should affect it, and the inspection exists to establish that
rather than to look for a problem anybody expects.
Turbidity in the creek at Vardenne rose after each discharge and fell back within a working day,
which is the pattern of the previous two winters and was expected. Suspended solids at the
Vardenne Quay station were reported at 41.6 milligrams a litre two days after the last placement,
against figures below thirty for December and January. The laboratory's note attributes the
difference to the placement and the state of the tide, and the secretariat accepts that.
No other determination moved outside its usual range, and the programme's quarterly summary
will report the winter as unremarkable on water quality. The Partnership has not been asked for
turbidity monitoring during discharge and does not propose to offer it: the creek is not a
designated water, the effect is short-lived, and the cost would come out of the survey budget,
which is the part of the programme that answers the question the trial is asking.
Vegetation on the marsh edge was mapped in October, before placement, on the line used since
2019. The mapped edge has moved seaward by a little under two metres at its northern end and
is unchanged elsewhere, which is within the variation the ecologist records between years and is
not offered as an effect of the recharge. The 1998 edge, which the advisers use as the reference,
is some eleven metres landward of the present one at the same point.
No change was recorded in the extent of the pioneer zone, which is the part of the marsh a
sediment supply would be expected to affect first and the part the Partnership watches most
closely. The ecologist's view, recorded in her October note, is that three winters is too short a
period to expect a vegetation response at all.
Two matters were raised by residents during the placement period. The first concerned lorry
movements on Kellow Lane, which were outside the hours set in the consent on three days in
December; the contractor has accepted this and the hours have been restated in the site
instructions. The second concerned turbidity in the creek at Vardenne, which was visible for
several hours after each discharge and is expected, but which had not been explained locally in
advance.
The bird counts made during the placement window show no change in the numbers of wintering
dunlin and grey plover on the flats north of the placement point. Counts were made by the
Vellamy Society under its usual arrangement with the Partnership and are reported separately.
The Society has asked whether placement can be kept outside the January count period in future
years, and the secretariat sees no operational reason why it cannot.
The Partnership held a drop-in session at the Assembly Rooms on 18 October, before the season
began, at which the programme, the consent conditions and the lorry route were explained.
Twenty-three people came, most of them from Kellow Lane, and the note of the session is on the
file. The two matters raised in December had both been raised at the session, which the
secretariat takes as a sign that the session worked and that the follow-through did not.
For the fourth season the secretariat proposes a letter to every household on Kellow Lane a
fortnight before the first load, giving the dates, the hours and a telephone number that is
answered. That is what was missing this winter: the information existed and the route to it did
not, and a resident who has to find the secretariat to ask about turbidity in their own creek has
been let down whatever the answer turns out to be.
The contractor performed the placement to the specification and without incident on the water.
The failure was on land: lorry movements on Kellow Lane outside the hours set in the consent on
three days in December, which the contractor has accepted in writing. The site instructions have
been reissued with the hours in bold on the first page, and the Partnership's site staff have been
asked to record the first and last movement of every day whether or not anything appears wrong.
The final account has been received and is \u00a33,100 above the interim valuation, on account of the
two weather stand-downs and a claim for standing time on 14 January which the secretariat has
rejected. The account is expected to settle at or near the interim figure and within the budget
reported above. The Board will be told if it does not.
The 2023 trial compared mechanical spreading against single-point discharge on two transects,
and the finding that settled the method was not about sediment at all: spreading disturbed the
buried peat horizon at Thrimby Point, which is a designated feature, and the Partnership
undertook not to work machinery on the flat again. Single-point discharge was the alternative
rather than the preference.
Three winters on, the case for the method is still the peat rather than the sediment. The advisers'
", "markdown": "Three winters on, the case for the method is still the peat rather than the sediment. The advisers'", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.1155, "y": 0.8627 }, { "x": 0.8768, "y": 0.8627 }, { "x": 0.8768, "y": 0.8795 }, { "x": 0.1155, "y": 0.8795 } ] }, { "id": 69, "page": 5, "category": "footer", "content": { "html": "", "markdown": "Page 5 of 7", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.8072, "y": 0.9223 }, { "x": 0.8833, "y": 0.9223 }, { "x": 0.8833, "y": 0.936 }, { "x": 0.8072, "y": 0.936 } ] }, { "id": 70, "page": 6, "category": "header", "content": { "html": "view is that mechanical spreading would probably move material landward faster. The
Partnership is not able to do it, and the question does not arise unless the undertaking is
revisited.
Risks
", "markdown": "Risks", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.1159, "y": 0.1526 }, { "x": 0.1619, "y": 0.1526 }, { "x": 0.1619, "y": 0.1667 }, { "x": 0.1159, "y": 0.1667 } ] }, { "id": 74, "page": 6, "category": "paragraph", "content": { "html": "Two risks are worth recording. The first is the dredging contract: if the Harbour Board's retender
in June produces a contractor without a suitable dredger, the material may not be available and
the winter's placement would not happen. The second is the peat undertaking, which constrains
the method to single-point discharge and would have to be revisited if the surveys eventually
show that the method does not work.
The programme is authorised by the Board annually and delivered by the secretariat under the
standing consent. The regulator is notified before each campaign and inspects at its own
discretion; the Harbour Board is a party to the arrangement for the material and receives the
quarterly report; and the Partnership's advisers are engaged for the survey and for an annual
opinion on what the series will support.
What the arrangement lacks is a point at which the trial is formally reviewed against a decision.
The secretariat proposes that the fifth winter be that point, that the review be commissioned in
the autumn of 2027 rather than assembled from the annual reports, and that the Board agree the
questions the review is to answer at the same meeting as it agrees the fourth season. A trial
without a decision at the end of it becomes a programme by default, which is not what was
agreed in 2021.
Four courses are open for the fourth winter. The first is to continue as at present, which costs
what this winter cost, adds a fourth year to the series and answers nothing new. The second is to
continue and add a control transect outside the placement footprint, at an estimated four
thousand pounds a year, which is the advisers' recommendation and the only one of the four that
improves what the series can show.
The third is to pause placement for a winter while continuing the survey, which would give a year
of recovery data and would probably end the arrangement with the Harbour Board, whose
dredger cannot be held for a season that may not happen. The fourth is to stop, which the
secretariat does not recommend and sets out only because a trial that cannot be stopped was
never a trial.
The secretariat's view is the second course. The marginal cost is small against the programme, the
control transect answers the advisers' objection to the design rather than merely adding to the
run, and it can be established in the same January window by the same crew.
The financial outlook
", "markdown": "The financial outlook", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.1159, "y": 0.0841 }, { "x": 0.2924, "y": 0.0841 }, { "x": 0.2924, "y": 0.0986 }, { "x": 0.1159, "y": 0.0986 } ] }, { "id": 86, "page": 7, "category": "paragraph", "content": { "html": "The coastal resilience allocation held by the Harbour Board runs to March 2029 and has \u00a3340,000
uncommitted against it. On the present rate of spend, and allowing for the control transect and
for inflation on the dredging contract, the allocation covers the trial to its conclusion with about a
season's contingency in hand. It does not cover a programme of works if the trial concludes in
favour of one, and the Partnership should not proceed as though it did.
The dredging contract is retendered in June and is the largest uncertainty in the figure. The
Board's own estimate is an increase of between eight and fourteen per cent, which on this
winter's placement charge would be between nine and seventeen thousand pounds. The
secretariat will report the outcome with the September programme paper.
Work remaining this winter
", "markdown": "Work remaining this winter", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.1154, "y": 0.3124 }, { "x": 0.3442, "y": 0.3124 }, { "x": 0.3442, "y": 0.3277 }, { "x": 0.1154, "y": 0.3277 } ] }, { "id": 89, "page": 7, "category": "paragraph", "content": { "html": "The work remaining this winter is limited to the February profile survey, which was postponed by
weather and is now expected in the week of 23 February, and the reconciliation of the
contractor's final account. Neither is expected to change the position set out above.
Next winter
", "markdown": "Next winter", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.116, "y": 0.4132 }, { "x": 0.2176, "y": 0.4132 }, { "x": 0.2176, "y": 0.4269 }, { "x": 0.116, "y": 0.4269 } ] }, { "id": 91, "page": 7, "category": "paragraph", "content": { "html": "The 2026/27 programme will be put to the Board in September with the contractor's rates for a
fourth season. The secretariat expects the volume to be similar and the cost to rise with the
dredging contract, which is retendered in June.
Recommendation
", "markdown": "Recommendation", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.116, "y": 0.5134 }, { "x": 0.2649, "y": 0.5134 }, { "x": 0.2649, "y": 0.5274 }, { "x": 0.116, "y": 0.5274 } ] }, { "id": 93, "page": 7, "category": "paragraph", "content": { "html": "The Board is asked to note this record of the winter's placement, to agree that the January count
period is avoided in the 2026/27 programme, and to confirm that the third winter of survey
should be completed before the method is reviewed.
Enquiries to the technical secretariat, Braithe Estuary Partnership, Estuary House, Vardenne Quay, Braithe BR3 4LN.
", "markdown": "Enquiries to the technical secretariat, Braithe Estuary Partnership, Estuary House, Vardenne Quay, Braithe BR3 4LN.", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.1156, "y": 0.6102 }, { "x": 0.8612, "y": 0.6102 }, { "x": 0.8612, "y": 0.6245 }, { "x": 0.1156, "y": 0.6245 } ] }, { "id": 95, "page": 7, "category": "footer", "content": { "html": "", "markdown": "Page 7 of 7", "text": "" }, "coordinates": [ { "x": 0.8073, "y": 0.9223 }, { "x": 0.8831, "y": 0.9223 }, { "x": 0.8831, "y": 0.9356 }, { "x": 0.8073, "y": 0.9356 } ] } ], "model": "document-parse-260630", "ocr": false, "usage": { "pages": 7, "standard": [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ] } }