The issue of compensation – often referred to as ‘social justice’ – has been on the lips of campaigners and government officials for years, albeit the latter almost exclusively in private. But this is the first time someone in such a high-profile position has aired such views in the public arena.

Lord Smith’s words are to be welcomed in part. After all, his comments raise the issue of compensation higher up the scale than it has ever been.

But they are also difficult to interpret. If there is to be a scheme of compensation, when will it happen, will it be retrospective and who will qualify? And perhaps most importantly, what form will it take – will it meet campaigners’ demands of 100pc of market value, or will the figures be too great for the taxpayer to swallow?

When the EDP revealed earlier in the year that Natural England was discussing an option to lose six Broads villages to the sea, it caused deep concern and instantly blighted house prices.

Just because environment minister Phil Woolas subsequently visited the county and said £100m will be spent on sea defences over the next 50 years, that doesn’t make the problem go away.

Will that £100m ever come out of the coffers? Administrations change, forecasts of climate change can be wrong in both directions and the pressures on the Treasury can move quickly and along many paths.

A senior government adviser may have finally listened to the compensation pleas, but some of his other comments will send pulses racing. Lord Smith said there would be “hard choices” over which areas could be defended and which would have to be left to be reclaimed by the sea.

And he said that while the agency would do its “level best” to protect those areas where there were significant numbers of homes, he warned that it would not be possible to save all of them.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb is to approach Lord Smith and ask him for clarity on his position on a number of related issues.

One would imagine that this clarity is some way off. This is a debate which has raged for years and although it has made some progress, there is widespread confusion and concern in communities around the country.

That concern is most immediately evident in houses such as the one owned by Di Wrightson in Happisburgh.

Miss Wrightson is almost certainly facing losing her home in the coming months as the sea continues to bite at the neighbouring cliff.

The erosion at Happisburgh has already forced her to move the tearoom business she once ran from the clifftop home with friend Jill Morris inland to the village’s church rooms.

“Lord Smith is clearly trying to get the government to think along the lines of compensation,” said Miss Wrightson.

“And if someone in that kind of position is advising such a thing should be done, it sends a little bit of hope our way. There is the chink of light at the end of the tunnel, but I imagine if it were to happen it would be too late for us. We get the feeling that once the house on the very end goes – and it is within just a very few feet now – then that will be the time we have to go as well, as all four houses are attached.

“The government seem to take so long to do anything, even if they think this is a good idea, you are talking two or three years before it all happens, by which time I would be surprised if we were still in this house.

“And I can’t see them paying compensation in retrospect, after all if they did, where would it all end?”

Miss Wrightson said it was high time that the subject of compensation was given proper consideration.

“Other European countries do it, so they should do it here – isn’t that obvious?” she said.

Although some people don’t want to talk about the issues of coastal erosion and saline inundation, the efforts of Mr Lamb and Happisburgh- based campaigner Malcolm Kerby mean that at least the problem is on the government radar.

In fact it is widely accepted that without their work the subject of compensation would not have reached the heart of government.

“It has been exhausting continually raising the spectre of compensation, but we have been told by people in authority that without the work which has gone on across the last nine years, the subject would simply not be being considered,” said Mr Kerby.

People may be tired from the difficulties of this debate, but the opportunity to rest is undoubtedly a long way off.

Story by Ed Foss in the Eastern Daily Press

People faced with losing their homes to coastal erosion or flooding by the North Sea last night welcomed a breakthrough in their fight for financial compensation.

A senior government adviser, the new chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith of Finsbury, yesterday urged the government seriously to consider using taxpayers’ money to re-house those who lose out to the encroaching sea.

It is the first time anyone of such standing has responded to the pleas of homeowners not to be left empty-handed after the sea claims their homes.

His comments were given a general welcome by those living on the brink of coastal erosion, although they stressed the need for speedy action and said the government was guilty of “ongoing ambiguity” over many issues linked with the management of the coast.

Di Wrightson, who lives within yards of the receding cliff edge at Happisburgh and is likely to have to move out of her home in the coming months, said she felt the wheels of government would almost certainly move too slowly to help her, but welcomed the fact the subject of compensation had finally reached the top table of government.

“I really do think they are considering compensation now – and so they should, people are set to lose what they have worked their entire lives for, having been told when they bought their houses they would be protected,” she said.

There have been increasing calls by homeowners for compensation to cushion the blow of losing their homes to the sea as the government attempts to move from a policy of holding the line to one of managed retreat along many parts of the coast.

Lord Smith, a former Labour cabinet minister, named north east Norfolk and Suffolk as being particularly at risk.

He did not make specific comment about the six Broads villages named in a recent, deeply controversial Natural England report which identified an option to allow 25 square miles of Norfolk to be abandoned to the sea – nor did he speak about specific communities such as Happisburgh, which has been at the forefront of coastal campaigning in recent years, or the Blyth Estuary, which is also threatened.

He also left many questions unanswered about the scale and timing of any compensation deals.

But his comments clearly had them in mind and were the first signs of hope for those who have campaigned for years to secure payments for those at risk from climate change and rising sea levels.

Lord Smith said ministers could no longer rely on insurance companies to cover families who lost their homes, suggesting they would have to be rehoused at the taxpayers’ expense.

“We need to start having a serious discussion with government about what options can be put in place,” said Lord Smith, who went on to say that the north east Norfolk and the Suffolk coastlines faced the most immediate danger.

Malcolm Kerby, coordinator of the Coastal Concern Action Group, a campaign body born from the problems faced in Happisburgh but which now has a reach into communities across the country and into several government bodies, said he “took tremendous heart” from Lord Smith’s words, but added that it was vital to avoid “false hope”.

Mr Kerby said the compensation debate was only in existence because the government wanted to introduce policy changes such as managed retreat, which were “utter madness”.

“To have someone at the top of the Environment Agency say these things shows that he accepts that if the government wants to pursue the policies it says it wants to pursue – which are folly in themselves – then there has to be compensation.

“We need a clear steer on this now, the ongoing ambiguity created by different statements from the likes of the Environment Agency, the minister Phil Woolas, Defra and Natural England is unfair on everyone.”

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said: “I am of course encouraged by the support for proper financial compensation for communities and individuals affected; it appears some headway is being made on this subject.

“But I have deep concerns about the fact people can’t play fast and loose with these communities, there is a danger that what Lord Smith has said will only serve to confuse people and his words beg many more questions than they answer.”

Lord Smith said the agency was already drawing up projections as to which areas of coast would be most at risk over the next 50 years.

Story by Ed Foss in the Eastern Daily Press

A 15,000-name petition calling for the government to confirm a commitment to protect the Broads from being swamped by the sea will be handed in tomorrow before parliament shuts for the summer.

The bumper document follows a pledge to protect a vulnerable stretch of coast for at least 50 years, made by environment minister Phil Woolas during a recent visit to north east Norfolk.

He defused fears over a Natural England scenario which said one option in the face of coastal erosion was to surrender six villages and 25 square miles of Broads countryside to the sea, if defences were too expensive or difficult.

The minister said he could not foresee any government allowing the famous waterways to flood, but North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb is seeking to firm up that promise through the petition.

“The minister’s visit was a significant breakthrough and brought a great deal of reassurance to people,” he added.

But despite the positive noises, there was still a need to highlight the concerns voiced by 15,500 signatories from all over the world in the petition.

Mr Lamb said Natural England still aimed to release the report, which caused the storm when it was leaked to the EDP.

“I had hoped they would not publish it, as we did not want people confused again, and we need to address the question of social justice for people whose homes are lost to the sea. But I am told it should reflect the minister’s views, so it should be a more positive document.

The petition will be handed in this afternoon, with Mr Lamb addressing the House of Commons before it rises for the summer. The document would be accepted by the speaker, and referred to the appropriate department for a response.

Story in the Eastern Daily Press

Flood defence campaigners are to lobby parliament in what could be a crucial week in their bid to save land and homes from being lost to the sea.

Members of the Blyth Strategy Group, which opposes the Environment Agency’s (EA) plans to stop maintaining flood banks in the north Suffolk estuary in the next 20 years, and representatives from local councils will travel to Westminster tomorrow.

The move comes less than a week after environment minister Phil Woolas visited Norfolk communities and told them that in spite of draft proposals by Natural England to allow a 25 sq mile area of land to flood, their homes would not be sacrificed to the sea.

Now those living around the Blyth estuary and fighting to maintain its earthwall flood defences say they too deserve government reassurance.

Guy McGregor, Suffolk county councillor and chairman of the Blyth Strategy Group, said Mr Woolas’s promise to spend £100m on sea defences over the next 50 years should include the Blyth estuary.

“This area is very special and of as much value as the Broads. Places like Walberswick and Southwold are real Suffolk gems and we cannot afford to lose them,” he said.

After months of trying to arrange a meeting with Mr Woolas in Suffolk, Mr McGregor is going to London tomorrow with Andy Smith, deputy leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council, to lobby the environment minister in person.

As well as putting pressure on the government, the Blyth estuary campaigners could soon be in line for good news from overseas.

MEP Geoffrey van Orden, who took a boat trip around the estuary to see the breaches in the earthwalls in February, will meet with European representatives on Thursday to discuss the possibility of securing EU funding to help protect the estuary.

The EA says it will cost millions of pounds to go on repairing the walls – which protect thousands of acres of farmland and 40 homes – and the work will be unsustainable as a result of climate change, rising sea levels and frequency of tidal surges.

Sue Allen, chairman of the Blyth Estuary Group, said she was pleased to see the government finally taking positive action on flood defences.

“Relentless pressure from everyone – our groups here in Suffolk and campaigners on the Broads – on all aspects of coastal erosion is starting to pay off. The politicians are starting to change their minds. It’s about time they took an interest in coastal erosion and not just inland flooding,” she said.

Story by Haley Mace in the Eastern Daily Press

Norfolk is to stand firm against the ravages of the ever-encroaching North Sea for at least another half century after the government confirmed £100m will be spent on sea defences over the next 50 years.

People living in vulnerable coastal and low-lying areas of Norfolk breathed a sigh of relief yesterday after environment minister Phil Woolas gave reassurances their homes would not be left to flood.

Responding to worries over a Natural England draft report, which includes the option of allowing a 25sqm area of Norfolk to flood, Mr Woolas said the proposal was “not an option,” and stressed it was the government who drew up sea defence policy not Natural England.

As he visited the county to see the effect of coastal erosion and listen to local concerns Mr Woolas said the government was committed to keeping the sea at bay for at least the next 50 years and pledged £100m of investment in sea defences over that period.

The first phase of work, to be done by the Environment Agency, is set to begin as early as September and will include beach recharging at Sea Palling and Waxham and rock works between Horsey and Winterton.

Experts are also looking at longer- term options for maintaining the coastline well into the next century.

As he toured Hickling, Sea Palling and Happisburgh, Mr Woolas had some clear messages.

The coastline and the Broads would be protected for at least half a century and, though individuals whose houses were lost to cliff erosion would not receive compensation, communities will be given help to cope.

Mr Woolas said: “The scenario put forward by Natural England is not the flood defence policy of the government.

“I cannot see a situation where any elected government would allow the Norfolk Broads to flood.

“We have a very serious problem across the country where cliff erosion is taking away people’s homes.

“The government is putting together an adaption package. We will not be able to directly compensate people but we will ensure that the local community is protected.”

Mr Woolas said “adaption tool kits” would be devised to suit individual areas and could be used for things such as relocating vulnerable roads and businesses.

During his visit Mr Woolas met dozens of parish representatives at a closed meeting at Lessingham Village Hall.

After the meeting Mike Walker, from East Norfolk Coastal Parishes Group, said he was pleased by what the minister said and felt the possibility of Broadland ever being flooded had “receded significantly.”

He said Mr Woolas addressed two principle concerns: support for hard defences and reassurance that communities had “a medium to long- term future.”

Malcolm Kerby, from the Coastal Concern Action Group, based at Happisburgh, said Mr Woolas had demonstrated a “willingness to listen” and felt the public outcry over Natural England’s proposal had made a huge difference.

“I do not doubt that we have got such an unequivocal statement because of the pressure we put on,” he added.

Jane Archer, who, as reported in the EDP yesterday, was alarmed to discover her home was only worth £1 because it is so close to the crumbling cliffs at Happisburgh, also met the minister.

She said she was disappointed that she had not been able to get a straight answer on compensation from Mr Woolas.

But she felt she had been offered a “glimmer of hope” by the proposal for community adaption packages and an undertaking to look into the situation of those affected by changing government policy on coastal defence.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, who accompanied the minister on his tour, said the minister’s comments on the Natural England proposals were a “substantial advance” and said he was encouraged that local people would be given a say in shaping coastal defence policy in the future.

But he said he still felt individuals should be compensated if they lose their homes to the sea.

“We cannot allow the people in the front line to absorb all the consequences of climate change,” he said.

Story in the Eastern Daily Press

A campaigner who has been told her house is worth less than a loaf of bread will today try to show the man in charge of the nation’s sea defences the true human cost of the government’s coastal policies.

The bungalow Jane Archer and her partner bought as a happy family home 21 years ago is still 60m from the clifftop, but is now worth just £1.

Today when environment minister Phil Woolas makes a fact-finding visit to north Norfolk over erosion and flooding issues she will be among the people keen to show him the impact of the government policy of abandoning sea defences without any compensation.

“I will tell him he is destroying our lives,” said 49-year-old Ms Archer. “Lots of money is spent by the authorities compensating and finding new habitats for rare birds whose homes are threatened by climate and coastal management changes – but what about people? Are they just going to let my house fall over the edge of a cliff, and leave us with nothing?”

Mr Woolas is visiting Norfolk following the concerns of hundreds of other people living near the coast and in low-lying Broads villages which are vulnerable to erosion, and a controversial Natural England option of allowing six villages and 25 sq m of countryside to flood in the future because it is too difficult and costly to defend.

After seeing reef defences at Sea Palling he will attend a meeting with representatives from a range of communities, including Ms Archer, who is a founder member of the Coastal Concern Action Group formed in her home village of Happisburgh in a bid to fight government “managed retreat” policies and battle for a fair deal for those affected by it.

Also attending is North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb who said it should be a collective effort of society to pick up the bill for adjusting to climate change not people like Ms Archer who were “in the front line through a quirk of fate and having to bear all the cost themselves.”
He was encouraged that environment officials seemed more open to discuss impacts on communities, but remained concerned that the Treasury restrictions could hamper funding, and that there was a need for urgency to help other people like Ms Archer.

She and partner Chris Cutting bought their Beach Road bungalow for £20,000 in 1987, when it was 400m from the clifftop and there were no problems over a mortgage and survey.

But a road and several houses have been swallowed up by erosion in recent years, after the government refused to fund the replacement of aging sea defences, and promoted a policy of managed retreat, which abandons long-standing defences everywhere except the main resorts.

So when the couple tried to get a bank loan to expand their motor engineering business, seeking to use the house as security, the valuer’s report highlighted “chronic coastal erosion”, refused the loan and valued the bungalow at a paltry £1.

Mr Cutting said: “It is not as if the house was right on the edge of the cliff. But we are now left with a house that is worth nothing, and lost about £60,000 through the collapse of the business deal.”

The couple thought the house might be worth about £50,000-£60,000 when they applied for the loan nearly two years ago, when a nearby cottage sold for £89,000 and other three bedroomed rural homes were selling for up to £200,000.

“We were angry and frustrated when we told it was worth £1,” said Ms Archer. “We are stuck here. We are worse off than first time buyers, because we only have another 15 years of earning towards a mortgage before we retire, and we don’t want to rent and pay out again for housing having already paid off our existing mortgage.

“It is so unfair, because when we came here the policy was to maintain the defences,” said Ms Archer.

Action group co-ordinator Malcolm Kerby said tackling that unfairness was one of their key aims they would outline to Mr Woolas today.

“Forget all the fancy technical talk. This is the real effect of these policies on families.

“The government suggests people should move away from coastal areas because of climate change, but how can they if their home values are being hit.

“They cannot pursue these policies without ensuring there is social justice. People like Jane and Chris are being put in a ridiculous position.”

He suggested that properties affected by flood and erosion risk should be underwritten by the government so areas were not blighted, leaving properties and communities viable.

Adding the real value of buildings into the equation might also mean it became a cheaper option to protect rather than abandon.

Story by Richard Batson in the Eastern Daily Press

Picked up in the Daily Mail , the Daily Express and the Telegraph, the Yorkshire Post, and then the Thaindian News (Thailand), the Economic Times (India) and the Malaysia Sun.

People who faced losing their homes through the effects of climate change should be compensated, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said yesterday.

He met a handful of people at Happisburgh whose homes have been blighted by sea erosion, then addressed hundreds more at Hickling about the idea to surrender 25 square miles of the broads area to the sea.

Mr Clegg hit out at Natural England, which wrote the report suggesting at least six villages could be sacrificed to the sea as continuing to defend them was too difficult and costly. He said it was an insensitive, cavalier approach to the issue.

An insinuation in the report that flooding the broads would teach the public a lesson about climate change was unacceptable, he added.

A cheering crowd was told that a long-term approach to compensation was needed, and Mr Clegg said he would do his best to represent their views and get their voices heard.

Mr Clegg said he would work with North Norfolk Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb to ensure the case for compen-sation was understood at the highest level of government. He added his name to 15,000 others in a petition, which he will take to parliament, calling for the broads to be saved.

Earlier, Mr Clegg spend an hour on the clifftop at Happisburgh, home to one of the most notorious examples of coastal erosion in the country.

The Coastal Concern Action Group campaigning for protection from the sea is based in the village, and Mr Clegg chatted to its co-ordinator, Malcolm Kerby, who said that it was the first time they had a political leader in Happisburgh. He thought Mr Clegg had left with a better understanding of the real situation.

Mr Clegg compared the situation to Heathrow airport, saying he was sure that people who lost their homes because of the new runway were compensated, so he could not see why those suffering from natural risks should not be treated the same.

Story in the Norwich Evening News

A top official from an agency considering the surrender of a large swathe of the Broads to the North Sea walked into the lions’ den last night to speak at a public meeting for the first time about the contentious scheme.

Shaun Thomas, the regional director of Natural England, spoke directly to the representatives of communities that face the threat of being flooded in between 20 to 50 years’ time.

And Mr Thomas told parish council leaders that more public meetings should be held over his organisation’s leaked report which contained proposals to abandon sea defences from Eccles to Winterton.

While last night’s composed meeting was in stark contrast to three highly-charged public debates in April, Mr Thomas faced a stern grilling over the economic ramifications of the scheme.

He was attending a special meeting in Somerton organised by the North-East Norfolk Coastal Parishes Group, which was formed to fight proposals to surrender 25 sq miles of the Broads to the sea.

Mr Thomas heard that people were still confused by the lack of information from Natural England.

Michael Walker, the meeting’s chairman, said: “It has been absolutely appalling. Ninety-nine per cent of people believe this area will be flooded in a short time and there is nothing they can do about it. Whole communities are paralysed by fear.”

David Russell, from Sea Palling parish council, went one step further and demanded Mr Thomas visited villages in the area.

He said: “When are you coming to speak to them? That is what they want.”

Mr Thomas agreed that communication over the proposals should have been handled in a “different manner” and he would take on board the suggestions of having “open days” in the Broads and work with communities.

He was also keen to point out that Natural England only drew up its controversial plans as part of its responsibilities to inform government bodies on environmental issues and had no power to enforce them.

That decision rested with the Environment Agency and local authorities, he said.

Mr Thomas added: “It is not our job to make long term decisions about the future of the Norfolk Broads.”

Councillors quizzed Mr Thomas about the economic ramifications of surrendering the Broads and compensation to home owners. Mr Thomas replied: “It is not our role to assess economic value.”

The meeting also queried the data supplied by Natural England in its draft report, including a map showing the areas that would be affected by such a scheme, and Mr Thomas said further clarifications would be added to the on-going consultation.

One of four options for dealing with climate change suggested in Natural England’s report was to allow areas as far inland as Stalham and Potter Heigham to be flooded, with the loss of at least six villages.

Story by Anthony Carroll in the Eastern Daily Press

Groups fighting plans to abandon coastal areas to the waves have resolved to work together to convince the government to drop the controversial proposals.

Councillors from across Suffolk and Norfolk coastal areas and from all levels of local government met for a conference in Southwold today. Also among more than 100 delegates were coastal pressure groups, Natural England, Suffolk Coastal MP John Gummer and Euro MP Geoffrey Van Orden.

They were united in wanting to stop the Environment Agency’s policy of “managed retreat”, or letting nature take its course as sea levels rise and coastal erosion continues. The conference focused on the Blyth estuary, one of the areas which will be most affected by the policy, but also heard of concerns elsewhere on the Suffolk coast and in Norfolk. Delegates decided that co-operation and communication were the key to persuading government to drop the plans and instead invest in flood defences.
Guy McGregor, Suffolk county councillor for the environment, who chaired the meeting, said: “There is no longer the feeling that the government agency will have its way and there is nothing we can do about it.”

Simon Tobin, district councillor for Southwold and Reydon and vice-chairman of the Blyth Estuary Group, said: “We were shown a map of what would happen in 20 years’ time with a policy of managed retreat. It was frightening. Large chunks of the Suffolk coastline would have disintegrated.

“The consensus is communication. There are many splinter groups, but we are beginning to pull everything together, making sure that the message is the same.”

Campaigners are due to meet with the Environment Agency in Ipswich on July 26 and environment minister Phil Woolas is due to visit the Suffolk coast next month. It follows on from a meeting in Felixstowe on Monday with Barbara Follett, minister for the east of England.

Mr Tobin said that the opposition was having an effect. “We were getting a message from the Environment Agency of ‘we are walking away from the Blyth estuary, managed retreat, we are not going to do anything’. They have been getting robust messages from the communities and from ministers that is not acceptable and they have got to come back and work with everyone concerned. It may be that some of the communities have to put money into flood defences but they are going to work with us.”

Story by Sarah Brealey in the Eastern Daily Press

An MP fighting plans to surrender thousands of acres of Norfolk to the sea has spoken of his anger and frustration after yesterday meeting senior executives from the government agency behind the proposals.

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, had written to Natural England formally asking it to withdraw its draft report setting out four options for dealing with the consequences of climate change in the northern Broads.

The last of these was a proposal to abandon nine miles of sea defences between Eccles and Winterton, flooding an area stretching inland as far as Stalham and Potter Heigham, with the loss of 25sq miles of land, including at least six villages.

Mr Lamb asked Natural England to withdraw the report, claiming no proper analysis had been made of the cost of abandoning the area and that the issue of compensation had not been considered.

He said people living in the area were already suffering the effects of planning blight, with house sales falling through and property prices falling, after details of the proposals were leaked.

Natural England’s chief executive Dr Helen Phillips wrote back to Mr Lamb, saying: “I am not persuaded that withdrawing the report or the fourth option within the report would serve a useful purpose.

“When we issue the final report, we will stress the need for society to plan how it needs to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Publishing our report will, hopefully, inform this process.”

Yesterday at Westminster Mr Lamb met Andrew Wood, executive director of Natural England, and Shaun Thomas, East of England regional director, who reiterated that Natural England would not withdraw the report.

After the meeting Mr Lamb said: “They now accept if you’re going to look at some long-term option you have to look at the social impli-cations. That is in itself an advance, but their approach contradicts that and it’s not happening in tandem.

“Their reaction was they still intend to publish. I have made it clear I think it would be callous to publish in these circumstances. I accept they were doing their work, looking at the long-term predictions, but now they know the consequences of their work reaching the public domain, they can’t stand idly by and let those communities suffer.

“I made it clear I was very angry and frustrated that they appear to be unwilling to consider either cost-benefit or the issue of social justice before we look at the environmental considerations.”

“I’m appalled by this situation. I think they have got a responsibility to these communities. I don’t see that anything would be lost by withdrawing this now so that there can be a more rational debate with those communities protected.”

Story by Jon Welch in the Eastern Daily Press