“At the level quoted, which is 40pc to 50pc of no-risk market value, people will not be able to move on uninjured.

It is clear that something is better than nothing and perhaps many people will misunderstand what appear to be negative comments on the matter from me.

But what is so important about the Pathfinder scheme which has produced this offer is that it is a guide to setting future policy nationally.

Happisburgh has spearheaded the campaign nationally for social justice and finding a sustainable approach to actually managing the coast rather than mismanaging it – as is the case at the moment.

If all we see out of this is a 50pc offer, that will send all the wrong signals to government.

We all have to be mindful of the fact that while Happisburgh is in this uncomfortable position of being in the lead on the issues at hand, we – and I – have a responsibility for other communities all around the country.

If we don’t get this right here, what hope is there for the other communities scheduled, under the proposed shoreline management plan, for the same problems we currently have here in Happisburgh?

And, more immediately, what effect will a low offer have on the wider community in Happisburgh?

Will it lift the property blight that many people have been complaining about since the shoreline management plan was first published in 2004?

I don’t believe it will.

What really grates with people is that if these homes were in a fluvial situation – next to a river – under the Water Resources Act 1991 there is allowance for full compensation of a home’s value.

All we are saying is that we want parity with the fluvial situation – why the difference?

The absolutely critical thing to remember is that the people on Beach Road in Happisburgh, who this applies to, are affected through no fault of their own.

This is a government-induced problem which means it has been done in the name of the wider nation. And the wider nation should take full account of that.

I would ask those people who think the 50pc offer is reasonable – and there are bound to be some – how would they feel if the government came along and said “look here, we are going to build a new motorway or railway or some other similar development right through your property and we are going to give you 50pc of its value”.

Some would say that comparison doesn’t apply because the erosion at Happisburgh is a natural process and the homeowners are at fault for moving there in the first place.

That is utter rubbish, there are people who have lived here all their lives who had legal searches done before they bought, which told them the government policy was one of ‘hold the line’, in others words no land would be surrendered to the sea.

It is then reasonable for people to invest in a property on the basis of that search and that policy – they were not buying on an undefended coastline. If they were buying on an undefended coastline, it would be a case of caveat emptor – let the buyer beware.

But here that was not the case until the government decided overnight to switch the policy to “no active intervention”.

If that policy is to change, it is only just to ally that with making sure individual people are not injured in the process.

And the other message to those who talk of natural process is this – we have 13.5km of defences to the north and 14km of defences to the south. This is the soft bit in the middle – that’s not natural process.

What ends up happening is we have a situation of winners and losers. At Sea Palling, millions of pounds were spent on the offshore rock reefs which have done a brilliant job of defence.

Yet they have an effect of interrupting the process of sand moving around the coast, which means other places have worsened levels of erosion.

Yet here in Happisburgh they won’t pay 100pc of values of these houses.

Anything less than 100pc would in my view be discriminatory. And the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 14, includes reference to not being allowed to discriminate on various grounds, including property.

Doing something about the situation which people both in Happisburgh and around the country are facing is one thing. Doing what is needed is another. This offer is not enough.”

Commentary by Malcolm Kerby printed in the Eastern Daily Press. Also in the same edition:

Erosion visit by minister

Coastal erosion minister Richard Benyon will visit Norfolk and Suffolk on Friday.

A formal list of where he will visit has not been published, but it is understood his visit could take in Cromer, Overstrand, Happisburgh, Winterton, Scratby, Hopton, Corton and Aldeburgh to see some of the key locations of current and future erosion challenges.

It is the first ministerial visit to the region in connection with the subject of coastal management since the coalition government took power earlier in the year.

A string of Labour ministers have made similar visits over recent years, many of them calling at Happisburgh.

“I was one of several MPs who wrote to Defra and asked for a visit,” said North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb.

“It is important to get our message across to any new minister on a matter such as this.

“We will be attempting to explain the importance of social justice to him and what the lessons of the Pathfinder project are so far.”

Opinion & commentary

The decision facing a small number of people in Happisburgh in the coming weeks is set to be a classic case of Hobson’s choice.

Take the money and move on? Or don’t take it?

And then what? Is there even an option to fight on? That is a crucial question and the answer is not all that clear.

It is a dilemma which has two impacts.

The first is on each individual and their financial security, possibly even their future health.

Difficult enough. But the second is the precedent it sets on the national scene. All that does is ramp up the pressure on the individuals. There will be those who wonder why the offer is even being questioned. They are not the ones faced with the decision. The proposed payments are an imperfect answer to a very difficult situation in a very imperfect world.

Some credit must surely go to North Norfolk District Council for creating this new option.

But our thoughts should be with those people who, having already suffered years of tension as each winter storm bashes into the soft cliff, may now face sleepless nights trying to work out their next step.

Owners of clifftop homes at Happisburgh are just weeks away from receiving precedent setting cash offers for their threatened properties, potentially bringing a lengthy compensation saga to an end.

North Norfolk District Council has put forward a plan to offer a dozen homeowners between 40pc and 50pc of the theoretical value of their homes if they were inland and not at any risk from coastal erosion.

Council leaders said yesterday the offer was “a very important breakthrough” which was both sustainable and reliable – and could have impacts nationally if the model was adopted at government level.

People losing their homes to coastal erosion have previously faced a future with no compensation for the loss.

The Happisburgh payments, which the government has for years refused to call ‘compensation’ despite the word being used widely by the public, would be made through a scheme called Pathfinder, which late last year saw a £3m grant made to the council to address a range of problems caused by erosion.

The houses would be bought and demolished if the offers are taken up.

But householders and campaigners in Happisburgh said they were not happy with the offer and that only 100pc of value would be acceptable – a point they will try to make to coastal erosion minister Richard Benyon when he visits Norfolk and Suffolk next Friday.

They said they should not be penalised financially because the government had originally led them to believe a ‘hold the line’ policy would keep their homes protected from the North Sea.

Other people who faced losing homes to river flooding or construction were fully compensated, they said, and their situation should be regarded in the same way.

Di Wrightson, who lives in one of the affected houses on Beach Road, said she felt she and her neighbours were being dealt with as “second class citizens”.

“Why can’t we be treated in the same way as people faced with fluvial floods or having motorways built where their houses were?

“It will be very difficult to know whether to accept the offers or fight for more, if we end up with nothing after fighting we will have done ourselves no favours.

“The hope was we would be able to buy another house from this money, but I can’t see that happening at these levels.”

The percentages would also not address the wider issue of property blight, said Mrs Wrightson, where house values along the coastal strip suffered as a result of erosion.

Malcolm Kerby, co-ordinator of the Happisburgh based Coastal Concern Action Group and chairman of National Voice of Coastal Communities, said: “It’s not good enough. It is letting the government off the hook.

“People’s lives have been changed because the government doesn’t want to hold the line any more. That is a change of a half century long policy and as such it should be 100pc, as they get on the Continent.

“Anything short of that is half baked.”

Mr Kerby said the council had done what it could with the £3m granted through the Pathfinder scheme, but said the original bid had been for approximately twice this amount – which would have allowed for fairer settlements.

But the council said the offers would allow people to “move on in their lives” after at one time facing a future with zero financial return.

“I feel this will help people get out of what has been up to now an impossible dilemma,” said Clive Stockton, the council’s cabinet member for coastal strategy and who runs the Hill House pub in Happisburgh.

“I think it is a very important breakthrough and of national significance for other areas around the country facing similar problems.

“It is not ideal, but a very reasonable settlement.”

The council’s head of coastal strategy Peter Frew said the formula to calculate settlements was complicated, but had “sound basis in statute”.

He was also pleased that a planning rule meant any houses bought and demolished could potentially be replaced with new homes in other parts of Happisburgh.

The council’s cabinet will consider whether to agree to the model of payments when it meets on September 6.

If they agree, offers will be sent to individuals with no compulsion to accept.

The meeting will also hear updates on other elements of Pathfinder, including a plan to move Trimingham Village Hall and helping Manor Farm Caravan Site in Happisburgh deal with losing land to erosion.

Around £688,000 could be handed out through the payments scheme.

This figure is £110,000 higher than originally budgeted because other Pathfinder schemes have seen less money spent than expected.

Details of individual offers will be kept confidential.

The council has given a hypothetical example of a £200,000 home in a theoretical no risk situation attracting a value of between £102,200 and £96,000 – equivalent to between 51pc and 48pc – depending on certain factors.

All values would be calculated separately with a formula worked out by consultant company Bruton Knowles.

Story by Ed Foss in the Eastern Daily Press

St Lawrence councillor, Chris Bonney, last night told the Ventnor Town Council about a new Isle of Wight council consultation taking place over the next three months.

The Draft Shoreline Management Plan 2 is a strategic document setting out policies for the management of the Island’s coastline over the next 20, 50 and 100 years.

The policies also cover the council’s response to coastal flooding and erosion risks.

No active intervention from Ventnor to Totland
What was very worrying last night, was when Cllr Bonney told the meeting that according to the document, one of the suggestions was that no active intervention take place between Ventnor and Totland over the next 100 years.

We’ve yet to go through the document in detail, but you can view it yourselves by visiting the Coastal Wight Website.

Visit the roadshow
The roadshow, which visits Yarmouth, Cowes, Wootton, Ryde and Sandown, was also discussed and it was agreed by councillors that the Winter Gardens would be offered as a venue for those in the south, as the alternative offered to Cllr Bonney was to make an appointment to view the documents at the Coastal Visitor Centre.

It was felt that would not encourage people to engage in the consultation process.

Full details are available on the Coastal Wight Website.

Story in the Isle of Wight News

COMMUNITIES in Dorset are being asked for their say on how the Environment Agency protects them from floods and coastal erosion over the next 100 years.

The agency says that local knowledge and experience are key to holding back Mother Nature as sea levels rise.

It is launching the Poole Bay, Poole Harbour and Wareham Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy, which follows a broader study that looked at flood risk and erosion between Hengistbury Head and Durlston Head.

Now, working with councils in Dorset, it is looking in more detail at what needs to be done.

Steve Rendell, from the Environment Agency, said: “We are doing this to work out the best way to protect communities and the environment into the future as sea levels rise.”

The aim now is to develop general policies into plans that detail solutions in areas that need work.

Mr Rendell added: “Once it is completed and approved, the strategy will guide much of the flood, coast, beach and wildlife habitat protection work that we and the local authorities do in this area in the future.”

The scheme will also include decisions on where to create new wildlife habitats to compensate for losses caused by rising seas.

Mr Rendell said: “In meeting these objectives, we will take into consideration the impact on people and the environment along this coast and within Poole Harbour, and the cost of implementing any measures.

“We will also take account of the views and concerns of local people and organisations.

“It is essential that the strategy adequately reflects the issues and concerns of the communities, businesses and organisations which have an interest in this coastline. We need to make sound decisions based on the best available information, science and expert opinion.”

To register an interest, e-mail PooleandWarehamStrategy@atkinsglobal.com, or write to Steve Rendell, Environment Agency, Manley House, Kestrel Way, Exeter, EX2 7LQ.

Story by Stephen Smith in the Bournemouth Echo

People living in a coastal village are “desperate” for help before their homes crumble into the sea and they lose any legal right to relocation.

Two homes in Easton Bavents, north of Southwold, are just 6m from the cliff edge and the owners fear they are in likely danger of succumbing to the sea.

Last year, £1.5m of state funding was allocated to Waveney District Council to explore the options available to communities at risk from erosion and potentially relocate them, as part of the Pathfinder scheme.

But a decision could be too late for the homes closest to the edge and those living in them want Waveney to support their quest to relocate now.

Paul England, whose son owns one of the homes on the edge of the cliff, said that if the properties were lost to the sea before a decision was made, the owners would lose their residential land use rights and no longer be eligible for relocation.

“There is no ‘risk’ to erosion here, it is a certainty,” said Mr England, from Southwold.

“We want to either have them [Waveney] agree that our land use is retained if the properties are eroded, or, if that isn’t possible, then we want their assistance in making immediate planning applications to relocate.

“We really are desperate for a quick response from Waveney on this issue.”

The two properties that are currently a few paces from the cliff edge are The Retreat, owned by Charlie and Beth England, and Thursley, owned by Sally Mitchell and her brother Andrew Thrale.

Speaking on behalf of these two homes, Mr England said they wanted Waveney to put the put the land use rights in some form of escrow.

Mr England said that Local Development Framework (LDF) policies also allowed for the “at risk” Easton Bavents homes to be relocated, but this would not be finalised until early 2011.

He said that, in any case, this required the whole community to be involved in the relocation, but some houses were still up to 20 years away from needing to move.

“We want to adapt and go somewhere else, but we can’t because the bureaucracy is slowing us up,” added Mr England.

A written response to councillors from Ken Sale, portfolio holder for the greenest county, said that the council was seeking legal advice over creating an escrow and the issue should be taken forward via the Pathfinder scheme.

A council spokesman said: “We are listening to a range of questions from affected communities and, understandably, the answers provided to them need to be detailed and comprehensive.

“We are seeking the advice of a barrister with considerable experience in this field to ensure that those concerned get the right advice as quickly as possible and we will continue to assist them in whichever way we can.”

In recent years, soft sea defences created by Peter Boggis, who also lives at Easton Bavents, halted the erosion of the cliffs.

But judges ruled that the site should erode naturally and the defences have now washed away. Since 1936, about a mile of land has been lost in front of the village.

The Pathfinder scheme was announced in December last year and 15 grants were given out nationally, with £3m going to North Norfolk Council.

The money allocated to Waveney was to be used working with people in Easton Bavents and Corton, to explore and deliver practical solutions to the impacts of Suffolk’s coastline.

Grants have to be used or allocated by March next year.

A statement from Suffolk Coast Against Retreat (SCAR), a group set up to preserve and protect the coastline, said: “While we are pleased to hear that Waveney is taking barrister’s advice concerning the ‘escrow’ possibility on the properties nearly in the sea at Easton Bavents, we cannot enforce the pontificating of the council when they have it in their own hands to make a decision now.”

Story by Amy Gray in the Advertiser 24

COASTAL defences around Millom may only be actively maintained for the next 20 years, according to a new report.

The proposals, identified in Shoreline Management Plan 2, show minimal intervention would be taken after 20 years at Millom Marshes, while coast between Haverigg and Eskmeals could see no active intervention at all.

The consultation document outlines potential policies for the future of the coastline in the North West and North Wales and identifies a handful of area in South Copeland as receiving protection.

The plan labels sections of coast with one of four categories advance the line – which would see new defences built on the seaward side of existing protection, hold the line – which would see repairs done, managed realignment – which sees minimal intervention and no active intervention – which allows the shoreline to naturally realign.

Villages such as Kirkby and Askam could be actively defended for the next 50 years, but Millom Marshes to the south of the town has been classed as ‘hold the line’ for just 20 years before being removed to “managed realignment”.

Red Hills, the town’s former industrial area would see no active intervention, though Haverigg and Hodbarrow Nature reserve would be defended. The potential threat was highlighted at the latest Millom Town Council meeting by councillor Brian Crawford. Cllr Crawford spoke of his concern regarding the proposed stance towards the issue.

He said: “I have a copy of the results of the latest consultation on shoreline management and I am very concerned. They are not going to bother with areas just past Haverigg and further on the Duddon Estuary.

“With the predicted rise in sea levels they will totally wipe out areas like the railway system between here and Askam.”

Cllr Crawford argued the study highlighted the potential importance of a tidal barrage across the Duddon Estuary.

He said: “One of the tick boxes for the Duddon barrage is if it is constructed it will provide some protection.

“This sort of thing can seriously affect the future of an area.”

The document is currently in the final draft stages and will open for consultation with councillors by late summer with a plan of being “signed off” by December this year.

Story in the North West Evening Mail

A COMMITMENT has been made to raise the £21million needed to protect Lyme’s eastern side from coastal erosion.

Phase 4 of West Dorset District Council’s coastal protection works in the town will protect roads, public utilities, businesses and homes from the more serious effects of erosion and associated ground movement.

If the work were not carried out 144 properties would be destroyed within 50 years and a further 342 properties would lose their access.

Around 900 metres of Charmouth Road and Church Street the main road into the town, and its facilities would also be lost.

District councillors last week approved proposed funding arrangements to raise the £21,348,000 needed to pay for the design and construction.

The report that went before the district council’s full council meeting last Thursday recommended applying for Government approval and Defra funding.

It also recommended completing discussions with Dorset County Council about its contribution, and asked the district council to set aside £600,000 towards the work, as the scheme would also protect council assets such as the car park and road.

The district council will seek to re-coup the cost by securing section 106 contributions – funding for public open spaces and amenities, or benefits in kind – from developers in Lyme Regis.

But the council has also accepted that the work may impact on council tax levels, either if actual costs exceed the grant contributions, or if section 106 contributions are lower than expected.

Planning permission for the work was secured in April and work could begin in spring 2012, with completion expected in two years.

Engineers are recommending building 390 metres of new seawall, designed to have minimum impact on the foreshore geology, together with piling, drainage and other work to strengthen the coastal slopes.

West Dorset District Council leader Robert Gould said: “We are committed to providing long-term security for Lyme Regis and the people who live and work there.”

Story by Adrianne Maslen in the Lyme Regis News

Coastal residents have called for more help in tackling erosion before they back a new shoreline management strategy.

A straw poll among 100 people who attended a meeting at Happisburgh voted to reject the latest SMP between Kelling and Lowestoft, because revisions did not go far enough to compensate the communities affected by cutting back on sea defences.

The key aim of the meeting held on Friday was to see what people felt about the newly revised draft SMP for the section of coast between Lowestoft and Kelling, drawn up in consultation by North Norfolk District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Waveney District Council and the Environment Agency.

The SMP which dates back to 2004, provides a large-scale assessment of coastal evolution and presents a policy framework which determines how the shoreline will be managed, for instance which sections of the coast are to be protected.

The revised draft includes three conditions, the first being that a proper technical analysis of the coastline should be carried out looking at what the consequences are of defending one place but not another.

The second condition is for an economic analysis looking at what will be lost and the final condition, that if an area is not to be defended then the social justice and compensation issue be addressed.

Malcolm Kerby from the Coastal Concern Action Group, who organised the meeting, acknowledged the work the councillors had done with the revised plan, but said the feeling was that it did not go far enough.

He said: “We had more than 100 people at the meeting and with a straw poll I took everyone wanted to reject the revised SMP, unless there is a social justice element not just as a condition, but actually built into or made to run concurrent with it.”

District councillor Clive Stockton, portfolio holder for planning policy, coastal strategy and economic development, said however that he believed both the council and the villagers were “singing from the same hymn sheet” with the revised plan.

He also pointed to the pathfinder programme whereby the council has been given £3m as part of the government’s national programme designed to find new ways to help communities adapt to a changing coastline, as starting to go some way to addressing the social justice issue.

The revised SMP plan is due to come back before members of North Norfolk District Council later in the year for acceptance now it has been altered.

Story by Tracey Gray in the Eastern Daily Press

Thousands of holidaymakers heading to British beaches this summer will be cheered by a major government report into the state of the UK’s seas. Coastal waters are getting cleaner, fish stocks are improving and species diversity in estuaries is increasing, according to the most authoritative examination ever carried out of UK seas.

But while the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs study boasts of “significant improvements” since the last such report in 2005, it also paints a picture of an environment being rapidly affected by a warming world. Seas around the British Isles are higher, warmer and more acid, it says, and coastal litter levels are at a record high.

The sea surface temperature of UK waters has risen on average by between 0.5 and 1C since the 1870s, which could affect the fish that appear on our plates in future. Of the 330 species found around the UK, cold-water species such as cod are in retreat, while warm-water fish including red-mullet, seabass and John Dory are spreading rapidly.

Fish stocks are improving overall, partly due to fishing reductions brought about by European Union quotas, despite criticism from marine conservation groups that the quotas are set too high to maintain fish stocks. The proportion of fin-fish stocks in UK waters being harvested sustainably has risen from 10% in the early 1990s to 25% in 2007.

However, the report notes that a large majority of stocks are still being fished at unsustainable levels. Fish are simultaneously being hit by warming waters, which are causing the cold and warm water zooplankton that fish feed on to move north. The warm water zooplankton tend to be smaller and less nutritious, affecting fish larvae and stocks.

Climate change is also causing sea levels to rise, with the mean sea level rising by 1.4mm per year in the 20th century. While slower than global growth of 1.7mm per year in the same period, the rise has not always been steady – in the 1990s, it was going up by 3-4mm each year. More coastal erosion and more flooding are likely to occur as a result, says the report, with the Humber estuary and Norfolk coast particularly at risk.

UK waters are also not exempt from the global trend of ocean acidifiation due to higher levels of dissolved CO2. This leads to harmful effects for marine life that rely on calcification, such as crustacea and molluscs. But the authors of the report admit the lack of a baseline for pH levels makes it hard to measure the rate of our acidifying seas.

Levels of pollution continue to drop since Defra’s research in 2005, including heavy metals such as lead and mercury. However, there are still some localised problems such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which, while stabilising nationally, are still found in places at levels that affect wildlife, including harbour porpoises. Litter levels doubled, though, between 1994 and 2007, with 2,000 items per kilometre of coastline. Litter was even found at a depth of 1,000 metres.

The picture for waterbirds and seabirds is mixed. Waterbird numbers are largely healthy, with the 2006/2007 population numbers 85% above levels in the 1970s. But seabirds have seen a 9% decrease in numbers since 2005, with herring gull numbers down over 50% since 1969. Seabirds are suffering particularly badly in north and north-west Scotland, due to the arrival of invasive species such as rat and mink, which affect nesting sites.

The evidence in the report was gathered from peer-reviewed science provided by universities, government agencies, NGOs and industry.

Marine environment minister Richard Benyon said: “The report’s findings show that we are moving in the right direction, but there is more work that needs to be done, especially to protect the UK’s seabirds. I am committed to improving our marine environment by delivering the conservation measures in the Marine and Coastal Access Act and hope to see further improvements in the next report as we gain the benefits from Marine Conservation Zones.” In January, Lundy Island off the north Devon coast became England’s first Marine Conservation Zone.

Story by Adam Vaughan in the Guardian

Visit the Charting Progress 2 website

Running along the southern edge of the Isle of Wight’s downs, Military Road overlooks the stunning emerald sweep of Brighstone Bay.

Thousands of visitors each year glimpse the breathtaking view of the white chalk cliffs, towering out of the sea along the coast to Freshwater.

But the elements are now taking their toll as coastal erosion threatens long stretches of the road.

Campaigners now want the picturesque route saved.

Rapid erosion

While coastal erosion has been affecting Military Road for the last three decades, the process has speeded up considerably in the last few years, including this past winter.

Fresh water coming off the downs has eaten away at the cliffs, creating new chines (valleys) and bringing the cliff edge perilously close to the road.

A tarmac car park has huge ‘bites’ out of it with a jagged line where the land has just fallen away down to the beach below – barriers have gone up to stop cars going over the edge.

The edge of the road itself is so close to the coast now that on one stretch it has been reduced to to one lane.

Not only is Military Road the main route along the south west coast of the island, it is also a major draw for tourists.

Four thousand people are supporting a campaign to lobby the council to stop the road from falling into the sea.

Potential solutions

The Isle of Wight Council has said a permanent solution could cost up to £10m which, in the current times of tight finances, the council insists it cannot afford.

Bypassing the worst spot would cost £500,000 but would only buy a short amount of time as the erosion continues to gnaw into the coastline.

The likely solution is that the middle section will be closed, creating two cul-de-sacs and sending traffic inland through nearby villages like Brook.

These tiny villages could face a fivefold increase in traffic, as traffic from the island’s main south coast road is diverted through the narrow village streets, many of which do not have footpaths.

Brighstone parish councillor David Tolfree said: “It’s totally unsuited to the volume and nature of the traffic – coaches and heavy vehicles. This increase in traffic will basically destroy the village.”

Mr Tolfree insisted the parish council had been “lobbying for years” about the erosion issue and something should have been done before the road reached critical stage.

He said: “This isn’t something new – this has been predicted and it seems there hasn’t been any contingency for this occurrence.”

Council finances

With council finances tight, and no funding from central government, the island’s road authorities say they cannot afford the £10m estimated to keep Military Road open.

Edward Giles, Isle of Wight Council cabinet member for environment and transport, explained gaining planning permission would be a long and costly process, given the land needed for a diversion is owned by the National Trust.

He said: “There are a great deal of difficulties in diverting the road because of the various conservation designations which affect the land.”

Campaigners point to the council recently agreeing a £300 million Private Finance Initiative scheme initiative for the island’s highways. But Mr Giles insisted the scheme is solely for road maintenance and “not available” for diverting roads suffering from erosion.

A public consultation will offer local people the chance to air their opinions before the council’s cabinet decide the fate of Military Road, probably in September.

Mr Giles said: “If we have a dialogue, it would better inform everyone as to what the problems really are.”

Story by Dominic Blake on the BBC website