Proposals to surrender 25 sq miles of the broads to the sea, in response to climate change, have provoked a public outcry since they were revealed by the EDP. But where have they come from, why are they being considered, and will they ever become a reality? Jon Welch looks for some answers.

(Eastern Daily Press 16 April 2008)

What are these proposals?

To allow the sea to breach coastal defences between Horsey and Winterton, flooding low-lying areas as far inland as Potter Heigham and Stalham, where new sea walls would be built.

Hundreds of homes, thousands of acres of farmland and some of Norfolk’s top wildlife sites, including Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere, would be surrendered.

The villages of Eccles, Sea Palling, Waxham, Horsey, Hickling and Potter Heigham, as well as parts of Somerton, would be lost to the sea, eventually reverting to reedbeds and saltmarsh to create a habitat for wildlife.

Where have they come from?

A Broads climate change “workshop”, organised by government conservation advisers Natural England, was held in Norwich in February.

A draft document, since leaked to the EDP, outlined four options for dealing with the effects of climate change in the Upper Thurne area.

Option one was to do nothing, allowing coastal defences and inland flood embankments to fall into disrepair, to be breached by the River Thurne and the sea.

Option two was to “hold the line” and maintain existing defences in their current positions.

Option three was to “adapt the line”: move defences slightly inland.

The fourth option, described as the “embayment of the Upper Thurne” is outlined above.

A further four options were listed for the rest of the Broads: do nothing; hold the line; adapt the line, giving rivers more space; and build a barrier across the River Yare.

When would this happen?

The document says that maintaining coastal defences in their existing position will become “increasingly difficult and expensive”, adding: “The increasingly unsustainable nature of the Horsey to Winterton frontage beyond the next 20-50 years thus opens up the possibility of realigning the coast as described above within this timeframe.”

Are these proposals new?

No. The proposals that make up option four were initially drawn up by English Nature and the Environment Agency in 2003, but that document envisaged this situation would not occur for at least 100 years.

Now the suggestion is that it could be much sooner. Very similar proposals are contained within the Kelling to Lowestoft Ness Shoreline Management Plan, expected to be approved this summer by North Norfolk District Council.

Why is this being considered?

Cost, primarily. Maintaining sea defences is an expensive business, not least because vulnerable beaches must be constantly “fed” with material.

With East Anglia gradually sinking, and sea levels forecast to rise, there may come a point at which the government decides it is no longer economically viable to defend certain areas.

Opponents say the cost is tiny compared to some areas of government spending.

The leaked document also suggests that in selecting such a radical option “the right message about the scale and severity of the impacts of climate change is delivered to the public”.

How has news of these proposals been received?

The Broads Society is “horrified”; sailors, anglers and tourist bosses are concerned; and in the communities that would be affected there is fear and anger, much of it centring on concerns about property blight.

Hundreds of people have attended public meetings in Hickling, Potter Heigham and Sea Palling, organised by North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb and coastal defence campaigner Malcolm Kerby. Nearly 1,000 people have signed a “Save the Broads” petition on the 10 Downing Street website.

Would this scheme ever see the light of day? Isn’t it just pie in the sky?

It might sound unthinkable, but all the indications are that government agencies are giving it serious consideration.

The Environment Agency has reaffirmed its commitment to “hold the line” for the next 50 years, but chief executive Lady Young has said that after this, there are “difficult decisions to make”.

Environment secretary Hilary Benn said it could prove uneconomical to protect some places from rising sea levels, warning: “Nature is more powerful than all of us”.

Natural England’s regional director Shaun Thomas said the proposals were only at an early draft stage, but added: “However, climate change will increase the pressure on sea defences, and we must start to look at how we manage the consequences of this.”

Norfolk County Council is against the proposals, and has said it will lobby government to continue to hold the line.

What about compensation?

This hasn’t been specifically discussed.

Last year the government set aside £10m a year to “assist communities in adapting to change where constructing defences is not the most appropriate means of managing flood and coastal erosion risk”.

Eric Lindo, of the Stalham with Happing Partnership, estimates “option four” would involve the loss of farmland worth at least £25m, and housing worth at least £472m.

But as UK law stands, the government has no duty to compensate people whose homes are lost to the sea.

What happens next?

It’s unclear. The Environment Agency, responsible for coastal defence, is committed - for the meantime, at least - to hold the line.

Natural England, whose views carry a lot of weight with the government, has said that once it improves its draft document it will make the information public.

It has formed a “high-level strategic climate change panel” with officials from the Broads Authority and Environment Agency, whose first meeting was held on Monday.

Certainly there will be a lot more talking and lobbying, but a final decision could be years away.