I can understand the position that not everyone can be defended, even if I don’t personally agree with it. My opinion though is that there is a moral duty to assist those directly affected.

Since a financial justification is being used for the decision to abandon sections of coast, there is a strong argument for financial compensation to those affected by the decision.

I fear that Happisburgh is being used as a test-case, and that meeting moral obligations by agreeing to compensate is being resisted as it would be seen as setting a precedent for a process that is likely to be extended around the majority of the country’s coastline.