As an example of the folly of the government’s rigid target driven approach, Balanced Seas has recommended a Reference Area which brings with it a conservation objective of “recover” (ie remove all human disturbance), even though Natural England agreed that the snail only needed the approach of “maintain” at Pagham Harbour (indicating that it is not being adversely affected under the current arrangements). Under the rigid rules Balanced Seas has to follow, it has had little choice but to recommend a reference area and thus afford it greater protection than Natural England thinks it needs.

There is one possible reprieve for Pagham Harbour, and the sea defences for the area (but at the expense of another area). The snail has also been found at Lydd in Kent, which offers a possible alternative site for the reference area needed so that the relevant box can be ticked. Once this had been suggested to Balanced Seas, Natural England responded that based on recent evidence the snail no longer existed at Lydd so the reference area would have to be at Pagham Harbour (however at the same time Natural England has stated that the snail is alive and well for the purposes opposing an airport at a public inquiry, and an application for international designation as a RAMSAR site. Subsequently, experts have questioned the quality of this evidence, so Lydd should now be back on the agenda to be considered as a zone, if the rules are to be followed.

The snail has not been seen at either Pagham or Lydd, since 2007. 40 specimens were discovered at Church Norton Spit, Pagham Harbour, and only 3 or 4 were alive when the samples were examined, the rest being “fresh dead”. This is the evidence upon which our sea defences may be compromised!

The bureaucracy which drives the selection of the areas is rigid and target driven, which has resulted in places such as Pagham Harbour which is already protected, being put forward so that all the necessary boxes can be ticked. Had the marine conservation zone projects, including Balanced Seas, been required to identify areas needing protection rather than following the inflexible formula set by the last government, and Europe, then they might have come forward with some very different recommendations attracting greater support!

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.

It is with some dismay that we have decided to write this comment following the publication of recent articles on the NVCC website. Although delighted to read that Norfolk has formed the North-East Norfolk Coastal Parishes Group in response to recent announcements for potential flood proposals on the Broads and its direct implication on the local community, we are extremely concerned to see history repeating itself!

The wording used by Natural England’s Representatives and those from the EA during the recent meeting held in Somerton seem nothing short of a ‘carbon copy’ of those comments we heard for so many years down here on the Romney Marsh by these Agencies or unelected Government Quangos when flood defence proposals were discussed. And as much as it is important to establish contact with those in charge of our future ( and let’s face it – they do decide what future, if any, we all have), it is equally important to understand the language (or spin) with which they deliver their proposals or decisions.

“ Taking local communities into account when making decisions” does not materialise – local communities are the last ones to find out what happens!

‘Helping communities to adapt to climate change” is just another phrase to cover up for the fact that Government is unwilling to spend money on coastal defences and sounds good as a ‘get-out’ clause!

“Being very aware of concerns and worries by local communities which affects their future”…?…..absolutely NOT – otherwise they would have consulted with local communities FIRST in order to get some feedback before drawing up proposals!

“Successful and long-term adaptation to climate change” is yet another phrase for walking away from stretches of coast where the Government feels that financial investment would not yield sufficient or ample support in return when it comes to the next elections! In other words – sparsely populated areas can easily be sacrificed in order to keep big towns and cities safe!

“Communications should have been handled in a different manner”… only points out that they have been ‘rumbled’ and are now wishing to be seen to be ‘listening’ which of course they won’t! All that is achieved by this is that it gives people hope and that they can tick off their box of having ‘established dialogue’.

We have seen all this before and have for four years fought hard and brave to change their flood defence proposals here on the Romney Marsh ! What has happened here in the past , is happened now in Norfolk and other areas in Britain and will no doubt rear its ugly head in many other parts of the British Isles is scandalous! No person should be at the mercy of Government proposals which effectively renders their most prized possession, i.e. their home, worthless Without the inclusion of SOCIAL JUSTICE there is no sea/flood defence proposal which would meet with the approval of local communities.

What happens now affects the future of Britain . Government has created a “Bermuda Triangle” for its own convenience in order to push these SMPs through,i.e.:-

DEFRA who is no longer responsible for the defence policies, but authorises funding of sea defence schemes has pushed the overall authority onto the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY who in turn attributes its final options to the advice received from NATURAL ENGLAND, which as we all know, is an unelected Government Quango working directly under DEFRA and who state categorically that they of course have no powers to enforce such policies! This leads us straight back to DEFRA who are responsible for the funding! In order words – the local communities are directly affected by this Bermuda Triangle and are likely to disappear off the radar if the Government has its way!

Bear this in mind when you negotiate with those who hold the strings for your future and far more importantly, try and unite with other communities all over Britain who are in the same boat ( which is what you all will need if they are successful). Only by uniting and not just putting one area at the forefront, can we as a whole stop the demise of our coastal defences all over Britain.