The section of wall collapsed in March 2022, while the defects in the Mill Pond have existed since July 2021.

Ultimately it is the owner of the seawall that is responsible for its upkeep. A search of the land registry for an owner of the seawall and footpath found the land has an un-registered owner.  This means that HBC are unable to trace the owner and those responsible for maintenance.

The owner cannot be traced from land registry records.

The Highways Authority (Hampshire County Council) is responsible for the management of the Public's Rights to access and use of the Public Footpath. But, in accordance with the governing principles of Highway Law, it has no legal authority or responsibility to maintain the sea wall.

HBC have no legal responsibility for the damaged sea wall at Langstone. HBC are concerned about the loss of amenity and coastal footpath and have prepared short term works options to repair the wall, which are indicatively acceptable to Natural England and Chichester Harbour Conservancy. However, these works are estimated to exceed current funding. HBC therefore continue to work with partners to ensure that the footpath and coastal access can be maintained for public use

CHC are concerned about the condition of the SSSI in Chichester Harbour which was recently downgraded to 'unfavourable declining' condition by Natural England due in part to the loss of 58% of the Harbour's saltmarsh since 1946. This is primarily driven by coastal squeeze with sea defences preventing saltmarsh moving landward in response to rising sea levels and limiting the sediment supply that enables them to keep pace with it.

CHC are keen to work with others to maintain the coastal access in the Langstone area and would look to source funds to re-route the footpath. Where the protection of houses, or important infrastructure is not directly involved it is better for the health of the Harbour environment to allow natural processes to resume.

NE published its review of the condition of the intertidal, subtidal and bird features of Chichester Harbour in 2021. One of the key findings from this review was that the site was in unfavourable declining condition due to ‘coastal squeeze’ and ‘inappropriate coastal management’. Where these defences are protecting homes and businesses from the risk of flooding, compensation for loss of saltmarsh is dealt with through the Habitat Compensation and Restoration Programme, but where they are protecting fields and other areas where there is no direct risk to property, there are also opportunities for allowing that roll-back to occur and to contribute to the recovery of saltmarsh and the environmental, social and economic benefits it provides.

There are no homes at risk of flooding behind these defences and therefore no justification to use Flood Defence Grant in Aid to maintain or replace the sea wall. They want to help risk management authorities, communities and individuals understand and prepare for a long-term ambition for climate resilient places, a nation ready for and resilient to flooding, and coastal change. This mean in some cases nature-based solutions will be used to enhance flood and coastal resilience, which result in restoring multiple benefits including contributing to nature recover.

HBC, CHC, and HCC are working together in a coordinated way to balance the competing expectations and constraints. This collaboration also includes expert advice from NE and the Environment Agency. The leading option for the medium-term is for wall maintenance with the aim of preventing a future breach of the Mill Pond and installation of a bridge over the collapsed section of wall. These enable the footpath to remain on its current alignment.

The owner of the wall is unknown so it is not possible to enforce the removal of the failed wall. Chichester Harbour Conservancy (CHC) would like to remove the failed wall section from their land and will ensure that the community are notified when the work is planned.

We have support to prepare a contingency plan for this worst-case scenario. The contingency plan will consider protecting public health and safety and communications with the local community. There are no current means by which the wall could be re-instated should it fail in the future.

The harbour is designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) a Special Protection Area (SPA) and a Ramsar Site. The Mill Pond is on the edge of the SSSI, and is designated a Site of Important Nature Conservation (SINC).

The advice received from NE is that the planned approach to maintain the wall in the medium term (25 years) and install a footbridge to span any potential coastal adaptions is likely to be acceptable.

Flood risk mapping for river and the sea can be viewed on the government website: Flood Risk Maps for Rivers and Sea in England - December 2019 (arcgis.com) this predicts that without the defences the field and Mill Pond are at risk of tidal flooding. The depth and extent of flooding is dependant of the severity of the flooding event. 

HCC will continue to monitor the condition of the public footpath.

HCC, as highway authority is leading on the development of options that allow to the footpath to be re-aligned with the changing coastline. 

If there is an unexpected collapse in in the footpath that poses a danger to the public the County Council have the powers to temporarily close the footpath, until it can be made safe. This may necessitate further roll-back of the footpath as the coastline evolves. All parties are trying to avoid this situation and planning for managed roll-back without access restrictions.