Firstly and perhaps most importantly (in the wider context) is the all new Central Government policy for Flood and Coastal Risk Management which came into being in July of this year. This is a policy which seeks to convince us, and no doubt the Association of British Insurers ( ABI ) that more will be done on the coast when in fact Government is looking to do much less with an ongoing reducing budget. The only positive I can find in the new policy is the fact that it removes any doubt that we manage our coast for fiscal reasons rather than sound coast management rationale. My own view is that the new policy is hugely divisive, has increased costs for the Maritime Authorities when seeking to provide a scheme which is subject to central funding grant in aid and could be damaging in the long term.

The conundrum for Government which this policy seeks to resolve is, how do we do less on the coast whilst convincing the public we are doing more!

There is nothing within it to address the shortcomings of past policy. For me the most glaring example is the continued combining of fluvial and coastal policy and approach. Clearly the drivers and solutions are entirely different for fluvial (rivers) and the coast (sea), this combined approach can surely only disadvantage both areas. It may make ‘political sense’ on paper but to both myself and others, including some highly respected coastal managers, it is a major stumbling block to achieving good coast management. I can however understand why it appears attractive to Government. I’m sure they would claim it reduces their operating cost. Problem is it conveniently obscures the paucity of funding for the coast when budgets are announced and produces policies which are centred on fluvial thinking much of which simply does not apply on the coast.

Also there is still no mechanism (policy or funding) for adaptation on the coast in the face of projected rising sea levels and climate change. Both changes appear inevitable and beyond the control of man which makes it fundamentally important that we have adequate, effective policies in place to successfully manage our way through said changes. In a word Adaptation.

Secondly we still have a situation where when losses are incurred to people and communities resulting from policy change on a hitherto defended section of coast usually from Hold the Line to either No Active Intervention or Managed Realignment there is still no policy or funding to deal with the consequences of that change. Yet for flora and fauna in the same situation there is a policy of 100% compensation irrespective of cost. Quite simply that can not be either right or socially just.

On another aspect of policy, or rather the lack of it, it seems that we the people are denied the right to a properly constructed appeal procedure against decisions made by the Government created quango Natural England (NE) who are charged with ‘policing’ the environment. Problem is Government and the politicians would have us believe NE are just advisors, a view which NE itself strongly supports and propagates. In practice however it seems no Government Department or politician will challenge or go against NE ‘advice’. So it would appear that policy is being set by default with a singular lack of checks and balances. We need more than just relying on the goodwill of any individual within it or NE itself.

Over the past year we have seen a plethora of public consultations from Government Departments and quangos on proposed new policies, indeed at one stage it was difficult to keep up with them. Those proposed policies have since been ratified and are now in place. The question and comment I constantly hear from communities and individuals (including those who have to manage the coast) is are these consultations meaningful or are they simply a ‘box ticking’ exercise to comply with convention rules as precious little attention seems to be paid to constructive comment made in the
consultation responses.

Perhaps at some stage in the future we will get a politician or politicians who will not just read the script handed to them by senior aides and have enough knowledge, understanding and balls to get involved in the creation of Flood and Coast Management policy which will actually work for the coast and it’s people within a fair and socially just framework.

With 16.9 million people living in the coastal zone in this country (Atkins 2004: ICZM in the UK – a stocktake) we deserve better, much better than that which is currently being foisted upon us.

I do realise that these comments may cause some consternation amongst some of the politicians and civil servants within DEFRA, EA and NE with whom I have had the very real pleasure of working over recent years. However I hope they know me well enough to know that my abiding principle has not changed and that is to ‘work with in search of better whilst telling it like it is’.

Malcolm Kerby
Coastal Concern Action Group
November 2011

Coastal communities across the region could soon bid for a slice of government money to help rejuvenate their area, it emerged last night.

The chancellor of the exchequer and chief secretary to the treasury will today announce the launch of a Coastal Communities Fund, which will support a wide range of projects.

The multi-million-pound fund is designed to support the economic development of coastal communities and will be available on a bid basis.

Malcolm Kerby, from the Coastal Concern Action Group, has said the money could give a real boost to the region’s coastal communities.

He said: “This is an excellent move because it seems coastal communities are always left at the back of the queue in terms of obtaining funding.

“Coastal communities nationally have been run down for quite a while with greater deprivation than in urban areas so anything that can help address this imbalance has to be welcomed.

“I would urge any coastal community in this region to make sure they talk to their local representatives and work together to get a slice of this money.”

Examples of what communities can bid for include support for developing renewable energy, improving skills or environmental safeguarding or improvement.

The Coastal Communities Fund will be financed by the government through the allocation of funding equivalent to 50pc of the revenues from the Crown Estate’s marine activities. In April 2012, there will be £23.7m available in the fund.

The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, said: “This new funding shows that the government is committed to supporting coastal communities and ensuring that they benefit from the revenue that our coasts and the Crown Estate produce.”

North Norfolk MP, Norman Lamb, said he was excited by the Coastal Communities Fund.

He said: “A number of years ago I put in a Freedom of Information request to the Crown Estate to establish how much income they were getting from Norfolk through dredging, and it was substantial. “If the fund is going to look to benefit communities close to where Crown Estate marine activities are taking place, Norfolk should benefit significantly from it.”

Great Yarmouth MP Brandon Lewis also welcomed the move. He said: “This can be a great boost to charities. The third sector is especially strong in coastal towns with their areas of deprivation and there are 197 registered charities in Yarmouth.”

The fund will open for business in April 2012 and further details on how to apply to the fund will be published shortly.

Story by David Blackmore in the Eastern Daily Press

A planned “buy to lease” scheme aimed at helping seaside homeowners and communities threatened by erosion is being dropped by a coastal council.

But officials in North Norfolk are looking at other options and a campaigner says there are better ways of boosting blighted communities.

Buy to Lease was being investigated as a way of an authority purchasing properties in danger of being lost to erosion between 2025 and 2050 – and leasing them back to the owners or someone else.

It would give the householders more security and scope to decide their future and remove the wider blight caused by lack of investment in doomed properties.

But officials have now say the council should not proceed with the scheme because of a raft of problems including that the long term risks and liabilities were too great.

Council cabinet member for coastal issues Angie Fitch-Tillett said Buy to Lease was one of the options to help householders. It could work in areas not affected by erosion but the certainty of loss meant properties had not been maintained and were not up the standards needed by a social landlord such as a housing association.

“We are not a social landlord, we would not get a return and the homes are not up to standard,” she explained.

The £170,000 budget for Buy to Lease meant it would only be able to used on one or two properties.

It would be disappointing for the owners affected but the council would be looking at other options said Mrs Fitch _Tillett, who has recently been made the lead on coastal erosion in the national special interest group of the Local Government Association.

Other schemes helping coastal communities adapt to erosion issues were pressing ahead, she stressed.

Coastal campaigner Malcolm Kerby said Buy to Lease was not an option he personally favoured. He preferred a different approach – property value underwriting – which is among the council’s alternatives.

Ever since 2004 he has called on the government to underwrite properties affected by the abandonment or removal of existing sea defences.

“Our island has been eroding for millennia. Our first priority must be to defend. We need a 21st century solution – a socially just alternative. Where the private sector fears to tread the angel of government should walk,” he added.

Ministry officials fought shy of the underwriting idea because they feared it was writing a blank cheque.

But with only around 250 properties affected nationwide the multi-million bill was still much smaller than other government spending such as fighting wars in Afghanistan, added Mr Kerby.

There is positive news with other initiatives under the Pathfinder scheme, which saw £3m of a £11m national pot given to North Norfolk to tackle issues arising from coastal erosion.

Ninety businesses have been helped under a business support scheme stretching from Cromer to Happisburgh.

And now the council is moving towards providing more grants and loans to help ventures needing to adapt to their coastal circumstances but struggling to get help through private finance.

Story by Richard Batson in the Eastern Daily Press

The ground beneath campaigner Malcolm Kerby’s feet is on the move again – but this time the cause is not coastal erosion.

Mr Kerby is having a “big wobble” and needs to make some important decisions.

He turned 70 in December, his fight for justice in Happisburgh has reached a major landmark and now he is seriously considering whether or not to “throw in the towel.”

For more than a decade Mr Kerby has led the Coastal Concern Action Group’s (CCAG) high-profile struggle to make government accept responsibility for the impact of its sea-defence policies on communities like Happisburgh.

And last month – after 12 years, thousands of hours work, ministerial visits, trips to Westminster, Brussels and The Hague, meetings, TV appearances, conferences and a lot of straight talking – that campaign began to reap dividends.

Nearly all of those whose homes are most at risk have clinched sales deals with North Norfolk District Council expected to pay out 40 to 50pc of the properties’ ‘not at risk’ values.

The agreements use government’s pioneering Pathfinder cash, given to help communities cope with the effects of erosion after much lobbying from organisations including the CCAG.

Hopes are high that, once those Beach Road homes have been demolished, it will be many years before any more slip over the eroding cliff and that Happisburgh will become a popular tourist spot once more.

“We’re halfway there and it’s hugely important,” said Mr Kerby.

For campaigners, who have seen government shift from a ‘hold the line’ to a ‘no active intervention’ sea-defence policy, causing property prices to plummet, the fight will not be truly over until those affected receive 100pc of their homes’ ‘no-problems’ value – ‘you changed the policy, you pay the price’, runs the argument.

Mr Kerby was blissfully ignorant of all that when he parked his bicycle outside Happisburgh’s Church Room one night in 1999 and tried to join his new neighbours inside at a public meeting.

Just six weeks earlier he and his partner had moved to Happisburgh, anticipating a semi-retirement with time to enjoy their beloved rescue horses, mess about in a boat, and for Mr Kerby to ride his 750cc Honda Africa Twin motorcycle. But there were far too many to squeeze into the room so they were streaming out and heading for Happisburgh Church.

Some 300 anxious people had turned up to discuss how they could protect their homes against rapid coastline erosion.

Mr Kerby spoke at the meeting, acknowledging people’s passion and energy but calling for it to be organised.

From that meeting the CCAG evolved, Mr Kerby became its co-ordinator and embarked on “a massive learning curve.”

What did he know of the problem at the time? “That the North Sea was cold and I didn’t want to swim in it, and that sand got in the elastic of your trunks and your sandwiches.”

Born in wartime London, he left school at 14 and claims never to have passed an exam in his life.

Today he can speak with authority on a highly-complex subject, has lunched with lords and baronesses, been chauffeur-driven around European capitals and is an external member of the all-party parliamentary group on coastal and marine issues.

CCAG has become an internationally-respected organisation and its website is used as a key resource by academics.

He went on to form and chair the National Voice of Coastal Communities, a CCAG off-shoot aimed at uniting all the country’s threatened areas, and is now regularly contacted by desperately-worried people from Barrow-in-Furness to Selsey.

Academic qualifications aside, Mr Kerby came to his CCAG role with a lifetime’s experience as a businessman. He was UK sales manager for Lotus before starting a company with his son-in-law, selling industrial insulation, and even found time to chair Wicklewood Parish Council.

Those university-of-life skills have been critical in helping him undo years of mutual distrust, if not outright hostility, and forge respectful relationships between campaigners and all layers of government – although he still has little time for “London windbags.”

Mr Kerby is convinced that the campaign for full social justice and a progression from Pathfinder should continue, but says he hates getting up at 4.30am to catch London trains, being away from his partner, and had long promised himself that he would bow out when he reached “the old three-score-and-10”

So, with such strong reasons to quit, why the wobble? He struggles with his thoughts before admitting: “Because I have enjoyed it.”

“I don’t think we’ve have got anywhere without him”

Malcolm Kerby’s contribution to gaining justice for erosionthreatened coastal communities has been highly significant, according to two men who have worked closely with him over the years.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, praised Mr Kerby for his pragmatic, bridge-building approach to working with the authorities, and the way in which he had steadfastly and clearly represented his community’s interests.

And Peter Frew, head of coastal strategy with North Norfolk District Council, applauded the speed with which he had grasped the subject and realised that it was actually a national argument. Mr Kerby referred to local politicians, council officials and the Happisburgh campaigners as “Team North Norfolk,” said Mr Frew.

And both men said this united approach had been vital in giving the cause credibility and persuading government to acknowledge that something needed to be done.

“I don’t think we would have got anywhere without him,” said Mr Frew. “He is prepared to ring up a minister and say ‘I am not happy’ – and they listen. Those doors aren’t open to us as public servants.”

If Mr Kerby did drop out, it was critical that the fight continued, both agreed. “Pathfinder was a one-off sum of money,” said Mr Lamb. “It enabled people on the Happisburgh frontline to sell their homes to the local authority. Now we have got to secure justice for all people in that situation.”

Story by Alex Hurrell in the Eastern Daily Press

Householders whose doomed homes are perched on the edge of Happisburgh’s crumbling cliff have finally struck sales deals and can start new lives elsewhere – ending more than a decade of uncertainty.

Demolition could begin in May on most of the at-risk homes along Beach Road and North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) chiefs say that by the summer Happisburgh will have a new look and facilities to welcome visitors.

Leading campaigner Malcolm Kerby said the agreements, revealed in an NNDC report today, represented a fresh beginning for Happisburgh which would have “knock-on benefits all round.”

The breakthrough follows payments agreed between NNDC and nine of the 12 owners of 13 homes. Negotiations are still under way with a 10th but the two remaining owners have decided to stay put and not sell to the council.

If the 10th deal is concluded, it will see the council fork out some £725,000 to help the at-risk householders from its £3m pot of national Pathfinder cash, given to help communities threatened by the government’s decision not to maintain their sea defences or compensate affected households.

Amounts paid are expected to be made public as each purchase is completed but Mr Kerby, co-ordinator of the Coastal Concern Action Group, said he understood they represented 40pc to 50pc of each home’s value had it not been in an at-risk position.

Di Wrightson, whose home is metres from the cliff edge, said she and business partner Jill Morris would move out next month and were looking for rented accommodation somewhere near Happisburgh.

They ran a guest house and tea garden for 26 years until forced to close five years ago because their home’s “dodgy position” made investment in improvements uneconomic.

“I feel betwixt and between – relief, obvious sadness, and a certain amount of anger that the whole thing has happened,” said Ms Wrightson.

“We’ve been fighting for social justice for years and in some ways I’m disappointed that we didn’t get the 100pc we were aiming for, but something is better than nothing and at least we have now got some money behind us to help us lead a better life.”

Jane Archer and Chris Cutting, whose bungalow was infamously valued at just £1 in 2008 when they tried to use it as collateral for a loan, expect their deal to be completed imminently and to move out in the summer, after 23 years spent raising three children in their home.

“We don’t know where we’re going,” said Ms Archer, 51. “We won’t have enough to buy somewhere else and at our stage of life it will be difficult to get a mortgage.”

Peter Frew, the council’s head of coastal strategy, said they had done the best they could for householders within the constraints laid down by government and he believed most of those affected recognised that.

The council planned to replace each demolished property with a new home in the village, said Mr Frew. Cleared sites would be landscaped and the beach would also be cleared of debris, and a new access ramp provided to the sands. The previous one was washed away in 2002 and access was now restricted to those who can manage a steep metal staircase.

Visitors would be able to reach the ramp from a newly-located car park, with toilets, which would be moved to a more-protected location south of Beach Road. All would be designed as ‘roll-back’ facilities which could be moved again as erosion crept nearer.

“We will be restoring Happisburgh to where it was 20 years ago,” said Clive Stockton, the council’s cabinet member for coastal strategy who also runs the village’s Hill House pub. “It will become a destination for visitors once again.”

Businesses stretching from Overstrand to Horsey, plus community projects such as Happisburgh’s Beach Road car park have also benefited from the Pathfinder pot, which has now all been allocated.

Among those helped are:

* Some 88 businesses offered services which have cost about £700,000, ranging from independent advice to grants for relocation costs or improvements.

* Trimingham Village Hall which is to be rebuilt in another location with about £200,000 of funding towards the project.

* The cliff-top Marrams footpath in Cromer which is currently being redirected, at a cost of about £45,000.

Next month NNDC will host a two-day conference of site visits and talks at which it will share its Pathfinder experiences and expertise with organisations affected by coastal change. The event is part of the council’s bid to shape future government policy.

“At the moment this Pathfinder project is a one-off,” said Clive Stockton, NNDC cabinet member for coastal strategy. “The question is, what happens next? We want to see this as part of a rolling programme of support.”

Story by Alex Hurrell in the Eastern Daily Press

Erosion-threatened clifftop residents demanded “social justice” after a Norfolk council agreed a possible compensation deal that they branded “insulting”.

North Norfolk District Council agreed a plan to buy 10 homes in most danger on Beach Road at Happisburgh for demolition and offer the homeowners 40-50pc of the value of their homes if they were inland and not at risk from coastal erosion.

Councillors said it was “the best we can do” and pledged to “continue to lobby and campaign” for a better deal.

But angry campaigners called on the council to give them nothing less than 100pc to enable them to “move on” and rebuild their blighted lives.

The offers, which are set to be made in the coming weeks, have come as a result of a government pathfinder scheme, under which the council got £3m to address a range of coastal erosion issues.

Last month, the full council deferred a vote on the compensation offers to enable further meetings to take place with householders on September 24.

But on Thursday evening the package – which officers said had been slightly enhanced since September – was agreed unanimously.

Before the meeting, householders made a final impassioned plea to councillors to give them 100pc of the value of their homes.

Di Wrightson said: “A 40-50pc purchase offer is not just and right and could be seen by some as insulting. You have the opportunity to put things right.”

Malcolm Kerby, co-ordinator of the Happisburgh-based Coastal Concern Action Group, said: “The Pathfinder is a rare opportunity to effectively address past abandonment. My desire is that we can exorcise the past in a socially just manner and move on to ensure that there will never be another situation like Happisburgh along our coast.”

Council leader Virginia Gay said: “We are very mindful of the terribly distressing situation that the people of Happisburgh are in. That’s what has motivated this council to do its utmost.

“But if we don’t pass a resolution, no offer can be made. It is also vital that we don’t close the door on the people of Happisburgh, and that we continue to lobby and campaign. This must not be the end of the story.”

She stressed that it was not “compulsory”, and that householders could choose whether or not to accept any offer.

She added: “This is what we believe to be the best we can do at this moment in time. It’s incumbent on us to continue to fight for social justice.”

Cabinet member Peter Moore said: “Let it be understood that this council will continue to lobby the government and anybody else to get a better deal than we’ve been able to offer at present.”

After agreeing the package, councillors supported a motion by Happisburgh member Lee Walker, who said 100pc was the “only acceptable offer”.

She said: “I propose we vote to permit the officers to proceed but add the caveat that there will be future negotiation and offers with those affected.

“If an acceptable scheme comes up then we can go back to them for further negotiation and offers. We must apply as much pressure as possible on government to include social justice for those around the coast, giving them the same consideration as those homeowners in the path of motorways and airports.”

Other recommendations passed as part of the pathfinder include providing help to move Happisburgh’s Manor Farm caravan park away from its clifftop location and relocating Trimingham village hall.

Story by Steve Downes in the Eastern Daily Press

Residents of a row of doomed clifftop homes in north Norfolk are still waiting to get firm compensation offers for their erosion-threatened properties.

A package of help through a government-backed scheme has been deferred over concerns the likely compensation figures of 40-50pc of the theoretical value will not offer enough to the affected people.

But while the local council says it is doing what it can within strict constraints, campaigners are calling for the deal to be the best possible – because it sets a precedent for other coastal communities in Norfolk and across the nation.

Eleven houses and bungalows on Beach Road at erosion hot spot Happisburgh will be knocked down once their owners have been compensated through the Pathfinder scheme, which saw North Norfolk given £3m to deal with the effects of coastline management changes including the abandonment of long-standing sea defences.

But a programme of measures, including setting the ground rules for setting compensation levels, has been deferred by North Norfolk District Council.

Cabinet member Clive Stockton said: “basically there are concerns the council is not offering enough for the properties in Beach Road.”

Officials had done their best to up potential values, by allowing affected residents the chance get planning permission for replacement homes in otherwise barred locations, and additional weighting based on the kind of compensation given if homes were lost to motorway or airport projects.

“Everybody in the council would love to pay as much as we possibly can, and we are – within the constraints upon us,” he added.

Mr Stockton hoped a meeting with locals on Friday had explained their problems and that the package could be agreed by council in October or November with a view to getting competition sorted and homes demolished over the winter.

But local Coastal Concern Action Group campaigner Malcolm Kerby urged the council to look again at the deal because “it is about more than just a few houses at Happisburgh.

“We must get it right, and the best possible outcome for the sake of the futures of places like Trimingham, Mundseley and Overstrand locally and others nationally who will be in the same situation.”

Mr Kerby said it was right the council was being cautious over the way it spent public money, but he would be exploring at high level whether there was more scope for flexibility over some of the perceived constraints.

Beach Road resident Jane Archer, whose bungalow bought for £20,000 in 1987 was more recently valued at £1, said they had not yet had figures put on the table, but the formula was unlikely to provide enough for her to relocate in the village.

It might provide about £45,000 for a home she felt was worth about £160,000 in any other location, which was not enough to rebuild.

“We would take the offer and rent, which would cost us £8,000 a year, but it is difficult to find places around here because of holiday lets – or try to stay here as long as we can, and we could have another 10 years because we are not as close to he edge as some other homes.”

Ms Archer said: ”You get used to living but the council keeps dangling carrots and get your hopes up – and this will not help us move on.”

Story by Richard Batson in the Eastern Daily Press

Campaigners pushing for compensation to be given to owners of clifftop homes at Happisburgh have said that the amount being offered under new proposals is still nowhere near enough – despite the plans being given a green light at a council meeting.

The plans to buy 10 properties most in danger on Beach Road at Happisburgh for demolition and offer the homeowners between 40pc and 50pc of the theoretical value of their homes if they were inland and not at any risk from coastal erosion, were approved by North Norfolk District Council’s cabinet on Monday.

But the decision has angered campaigners, who say nothing less than 100pc should be offered.

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 last year saw a £3m grant made to the council to address a range of problems caused by erosion. People losing their homes to coastal erosion have previously faced receiving no compensation.

Malcolm Kerby, co-ordinator of the Happisburgh based Coastal Concern Action Group and chairman of National Voice of Coastal Communities, said anything short of 100pc market value was sending the wrong message to government and other communities looking to gain compensation for coastal erosion.

Lee Walker, the district council’s member for Happisburgh Ward, warned other councillors at the meeting that adopting the proposals would be “letting the government off the hook”.

She said: “This is about our relatives, our friends, people who are part of the community.

“The only percentage these people should get is 100pc, it is not just the residents of Beach Road saying that but the entire community. If you agree the 40-50pc you are setting a precedent.”

Jane Archer, whose own home in Beach Road was once famously valued at just £1, was disappointed. She said: “The whole point of Pathfinder was to find a way for people to move on, if we are only going to get between 40 and 50pc I do not see how that can happen.”

The council’s head of coastal strategy Peter Frew, reiterated the point that the 40-50pc figure only applies to houses most at risk, and that another report would look at the buying and leasing other homes nearby in the 20-100 year line, and the price offered could be much nearer the non-risk market value.

Clive Stockton, the council’s cabinet member for coastal strategy, who runs the Hill House pub in Happisburgh, said the proposals were “the best we are going to get”.

He added: “I believe that we should give the people of Beach Road the best offer we can, because if time passes, they will have nothing.”

The cabinet councillors voted in favour of the plans which will now come before full council for ratification with a recommendation that before the meeting further inquires were made in relation to the possibility of attracting more funding for the properties which would be offered the 40-50pc payments.

Other recommendations include providing help to move the Manor Farm caravan park away from its clifftop location, and relocating a village hall at Trimingham.

Story by Tracey Gray in the Eastern Daily Press

Environment minister Richard Benyon took a fact finding tour of Norfolk and Suffolk’s erosion-scoured coastline to hear about the problems it causes for resident and communities.

Ministers come and go at erosion hot spots with the same certainty as the tides which eat away at the crumbling cliffs.

The latest Whitehall “suit” to visit the shoreline came to find out more about how communities are coping with current coastal management strategies which see many established defences being abandoned, leaving villages in fear and blighted by plunging property prices.

Aided by millions of pounds of government cash local councils are coming up with measures to help – including compensation packages, and oiling the wheels for people to relocate homes, businesses and village halls in their perilous parishes.

Mr Benyon saw the situation and heard from officials and campaigners at Happisburgh, and the Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft areas where he also discussed fishing issues.

But erosion was the main agenda and Mr Benyon made it but was quite clear that there was not a huge pot of cash to bale out problem-hit areas.

In North Norfolk he said the coastline had “the most serious erosion problems in Europe.

“Everybody knows there is a serious problem and it is exacerbated by climate change

“No one is going to ignore it, and there is no change in the determination to deal with it.

“Flooding and coastal erosion are real priorities for the government. Other areas will be cut back severely but these will be a continuing priority.”

The government spends about £720m on tackling river and coastal flooding, about a third of it on the coast, but needed to be “smarter” with its money.

A large slice of an £11m national Pathfinder pot – aimed at setting up local initiatives – has gone to East Anglia, with North Norfolk getting £3m, Waveney £1.5m and Yarmouth £300,000.

Mr Benyon was impressed with some of the schemes in North Norfolk, which include seeking to buy threatened homes – some to demolish , some to lease back for some of their remaining lifetime in a bid to beat off blighted property prices.

“The government does not have a bottomless pot of money, so we are looking for innovative local solutions,” he added.

On Monday North Norfolk District Council’s cabinet will discuss a package of Pathfinder measures including buying 10 properties most in danger on Beach Road at Happisburgh for demolition, a look at buying and leasing others nearby in the 20-100 year line, and provide help to move the Manor Farm caravan park away from its clifftop location. It is also helping to relocate a village hall at Trimingham.

Local MP Norman Lamb who met the minister at the start of his tour has also suggested launching a “local solidarity fund” which could see locals put £5 a year into a pot to manage the coastline – either for defences or compensation schemes.

It would need to be backed by a local referendum and he hoped people right across the district, at inland towns too, would support the idea as it would be protecting not just coastal communities but local heritage.

He accepted it was “always a battle” to get government funding, so initiatives needed to be a combination of local and government initiatives. The local fund would enable North Norfolk to have more of a say in its destiny.

Mr Benyon said he would need to check there was “legal impediment” to the idea, but said the government encouraged “localism.”

He added that the coastline around Norfolk and Suffolk was also part of the region’s heritage and helped protect the Broads, which provided tourism income to the area.

Local coastal campaigner Malcolm Kerby from the Coastal Concern Action Group said progress had been made over the years with compensation, which was once ruled out, now on the table – though not at the 100pc levels that would be ideal.

The ministerial visit was a chance to build a rapport with the new man in charge and a chance to persuade him that erosion – and the withdrawal of sea defences under latest policies – was a “national problem that needs national solution.”

Story by Richard Batson in the North Norfolk News

“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.