A comparison of options for Bastion Point was carried out during 2011 by engineering company Hyder, under contract to the Department of Transport. The comparison was released on 24 February 2012, with a short period of public comment until 11 March 2012. The Department of Transport page on the proposal is here.
The documents released are complex, and inter-related. The first comparison made was between Option 3b (130 m breakwater, road on beach, 35 space elongated car park) and the SBPC Alternative Concept. Hyder conducted a Multi Criteria Analysis, or MCA. This is heavily weighted to safety issues. The breakdown is:
Safety: 45 % Environment: 30% Usability: 10% Capital Cost: 10% Operational Cost: 5%
Hyder began by making changes to the SBPC Alternative Concept, mainly by reducing the car/boat parking spaces from 35 to 30, and placing the jetty to the west, rather than east side of the ramp. They called this the ‘Alternate option����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� and compared it to Option 3b. Under the MCA, Option 3b scored 2.45, and the Alternative Option 2.35.
As a result of this, they examined a further alternative option that they named ‘Alternate H2���; the report for this is here, and the appendices referred to in this report are here. Alternate H2 consisted of a similar boat ramp to the Alternative Option, but with a 60 m breakwater. This report rated the options with MCA values of Alternate H2 as 2.52, Option 3b as 2.45, and the Alternative Option as 2.35.
Whilst Alternate H2 came out highest in this analysis, Hyder was still concerned that it actually had the highest number of high risks, for which the MCA is so heavily weighted (38% for high risks alone).
Thus they looked at mitigations for three of those risks, which were focused around their view that congestion due to boats waiting to access the ramp during a mass return because of a sudden change in the weather may cause boats to capsize or collide and that a fisherman could be swept off the jetty in heavy seas. As such, Hyder proposes these risks can be eliminated or reduced by extending the breakwater a further 70 m to a total of 130 m, as shown below.
This is a significantly larger proposal to the Alternate H2, and unfortunately Hyder has not renamed this as a further option, such as Alternate H3. The option they are now recommending proceed to the design stage has not gone through an adequate MCA assessment to have its environmental score adjusted. The above plan of Alternate H2 can be downloaded here.
Please see our analysis of the Hyder proposal here.