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

NATURAL England experts have objected to a bid by residents to slow the decline of Sidmouth’s crumbling coastline – because the scheme will halt rapid erosion.

Cliff Road homeowners hope to reach an agreement with the body over their proposals for a £900,000 rock revetment along the base of cliffs near Pennington Point.

A group of residents, turned activists, spent £10,000 on a planning application they think will prevent catastrophic flooding of the town, protect Alma Bridge and the coastal footpath, and save their properties from toppling into the sea.

But Natural England says the proposed rock revetment is in “direct conflict” with a shoreline management plan for the area.

Experts say in a report: “This stretch is one of the most productive sources of rare Triassic fossil vertebrates and new finds are regularly made in the cliff falls.

“The revetment will prevent erosion, halting natural processes which maintain fresh sections and provide a renewed supply of fallen fossil bearing rocks for study.

“The construction, in our view, will permanently change the landscape character of this area from one of naturalness and wilderness to one where a man-made structure dominates.”

They also claim the retaining wall will have “a permanent major adverse visual impact”.

Residents were due meet with Natural England representatives and a district council officer this week to discuss objections, but talks were delayed until September.

A decision by East Devon District Council (EDDC) on the fate of the 240metre granite wall – which has garnered widespread public support – is expected in October or November.

Cliff Road campaigner Paul Griew said: “We’ll discuss possible options, find out what the objections and key issues are, and see if we can find some common ground.

“They want natural erosion to continue at 10cm a year, and so do we.

“Since the rock islands were built the rate has been 20 to 30 times greater.

“Our plans are the only option we’ve yet heard that will actually achieve our objectives. We’re only too pleased to listen to other ideas.

“If we can’t find an agreement we’ll press ahead with the planning application. At least we’ll know we tried to reach and agreement.”

National Trust representatives also told the district council in an objection: “Developments might impede natural processes or obscure exposed geology.”

Story by Stefan Gordon in the Sidmouth Herald

Residents of Walney’s West Shore Park fear coastal erosion at Earnse Bay will eventually lead to their chalets being flooded.

Two years ago, temporary flood defences were put in place to protect the park.

Now government organisation Natural England has met with members of Barrow Borough Council and the owners of the park, Embra, to discuss how to build long term protection for the Earnse Bay residents.

Chris Lumb, marine delivery leader for Natural England said: “It was a very helpful and constructive meeting.

“There was an agreement that further works were needed to be done to protect the area.

“The owner is going to go away and look at the proposals to see what needs doing.”

Barrow Borough Council leader Jack Richardson is pleased with the progress.

He said: “Up until now, it seems they’ve been willing to let nature take its course. They seemed to take the view that these aren’t permanent dwellings, and I think to suggest that families who have lived there for 20, 30 years aren’t there permanently is a little naive. If there’s been a change I’d be extremely pleased. We’ve been pushing for this for some considerable time.”

Past work carried out by council contractors to draw up a coastal defence scheme had to be scrapped because of a Natural England ruling.

The public body said a rare vegetated shingle that grows on the beach makes it a protected area, so building flood barriers there would be inappropriate.

Now Mr Lumb says the progress of permanent flood protection plans depends on finding a sustainable way of building the defences.

He said: “The council are responsible for coastal protection practices, we’re a consultee. We’re working to try and agree some protection which will protect the people and protect the natural environment. The three groups need to find a satisfactory way to do that.”

Story by Emma Preston in the North West Evening Mail

A retired engineer has been dealt a blow in his battle to prevent his home from falling into the North Sea after an appeal was upheld.

Conservation watchdog Natural England has today won an appeal against a court judgment to allow the cliffs below Peter Boggis’ home at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, to erode naturally.

Since 2002, the 78-year-old has spent tens of thousands of pounds installing his own “soft” sea defences built of 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soil in front of the cliffs near his home.

The work was carried out without planning permission and the Court of Appeal said today that the only lawful course open to Mr Boggis and other members of Easton Bavents Conservation was to apply for permission and go through the correct planning process.

Mr Boggis, whose house, The Warren, is 302ft from the cliff edge, says his sea defences have so far saved more than eight acres of land and four properties “at no cost to the nation”.

He wants to be allowed to maintain his defences to prevent further erosion of the cliffs.

In 2006, Natural England notified a coastal Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) between Southwold in the south and Kessingland in the north.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Blair said the evidence showed that part of the intention of the SSSI was to allow the destruction of Mr Boggis’ defences and the rapid erosion of the cliffs behind them.

He said: “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Mr Boggis and the other residents who can see the cliff face remorselessly approaching the boundaries of their properties.

“But they were aiming at the wrong target in challenging the SSSI. The lawful course would be to apply for planning permission and coastal protection consent so that all material considerations, including their human rights and the SSSI, could be taken into account.”

Story in the Eastern Daily Press, and also featured in the Independent, the Guardian and the Telegraph

Watch a video clip on BBC News

Read the full judgment

Hundreds of miles of the English coastline are inaccessible to the public, according to Natural England.

And miles of footpaths which provide public rights of way by the coast could vanish into the sea within 20 years because of coastal erosion, it warned.

Maps drawn up as part of plans for a coastal path around England showed 34% of the 2,478 miles (3,988km) of shore does not have full access for walkers.

On average, people can walk about two miles before finding their way blocked.

Natural England, which advises the government on the natural environment, is aiming to create a coastal path around the whole of England in a £50m scheme over the next decade.

Story on the BBC News Website.

Read the report on the Natural England website

PLANS to rescue 56 homes on the cliff edge at Scarborough could be scuppered by an agreement entered into by the council in 2007, according to watchdogs Natural England.

The organisation’s regional director has also expressed his surprise that planning permission was ever given to build the bungalows when it was known that the land they are built on was at risk of landslip.

He added that, rather than spending £20 million on shoring up the homes at Knipe Point, Cayton Bay – as Scarborough Council is hoping to do – it might be better to relocate the families living in the threatened properties.

Peter Nottage told the Evening News that his organisation would do everything it could to help in the negotiations to find a solution, but he also emphasised that Natural England had a statutory duty to protect certain areas for their geographical importance, and one of the reasons that Cayton Bay is important is specifically the landslip.

“We have a responsibility to protect natural features and part of the importance of the area at Knipe Point is around the process itself and how that develops,” he said.

“We’re fully aware of the interests and importance of the residents. Of course I understand their fears, as a homeowner myself I fully understand that no-one wants to even have to think about their home falling into the sea.”

However, he said that efforts to save the homes on the site could be fruitless because of the 2007 Shoreline Management Policy, which was signed by Scarborough Council and which sets out the framework for the coastline between the Tyne and Filey Bay for the next 100 years. He said that the policy clearly states that there is to be “no active intervention” at Cayton Bay.

Story in the Scarborough Evening News

Hundreds of homes could be at risk from flooding after plans to improve sea defences were blocked by a conservation group.

Natural England has opposed Arun District Council’s move to transport 30,000 square metres of shingle to Pagham, near Chichester, from the nearby Church Norton spit.

It decided the work would have a detrimental effect on the environment and wildlife of the area.

The £450,000 scheme would have helped bolster the beach near Pagham Yacht Club to reduce the risk of flooding.

But now the council faces an even larger bill and potential delays as it is forced to try to import the shingle from out at sea.

The delay means that the work, which was due to be carried out in September, may not start until next year, leaving hundreds of homes open to the elements.

Ray Radmall, the chairman of Pagham Parish Council, said: “We urgently need a sustainable long term solution to Pagham’s recent erosion problem.

“The Arun District Council scheme would have bought crucial time for essential studies to be carried out in the quest for such a solution.

“Just when we thought that a first step in that process was being put in place the rug has been pulled from under us. We must all re-double our efforts to overcome this setback.”

If the north of the Pagham harbour entrance is allowed to erode, 160 homes built on the shingle bank would be at risk.

It would expose the harbour defences to waves and threaten a further 350 properties as well as flooding more than 300 hectares of land.

The district council said it was working to try to get defences in place by the winter.

Roger Elkins, Arun’s deputy leader, said: “We had been working with a range of partners and were aware of the importance of the environmental designations which relate to the protected species of birds in this area and the formation of the spit itself.

“We had ensured that these issues were taken account of in our study of the area.

“It is very frustrating to find ourselves in a situation where we need shingle to protect the residents of Pagham but we are having to get it from offshore, at much greater cost, when there is a huge quantity of shingle sitting just a few hundred metres away.”

Story by Samuel Underwood in The Argus

A villager has been honoured for her role in a David and Goliath style battle against the might of a government quango.

Fifty nine year old Susan Lowes is standing tall after she played a pivotal part in bringing down a controversial policy to surrender her home and 25sq miles of the Norfolk Broads to the sea.

The former bank worker was at the forefront of a grassroots uprising against now ditched plans by Natural England to allow her village of Potter Heigham and five others to be submerged by the North Sea.

And in recognition of Mrs Lowes’ involvement in setting up the Save our Broads petition, which collected several thousands of names, she is to be officially thanked by her fellow villagers.

On Wednesday night, Potter Heigham Parish Council was due to present her with the annual Peter Sandell good neighbour award.

Mrs Lowes said: “The thought of them flooding this area was just a nightmare; it made me livid. I decided that instead of just sitting here and moaning about it something had to be done.”

The Natural England proposals to flood the Broads and the other villages of Eccles, Sea Palling, Waxham, Hickling and Horsey, were revealed last year, but were scrapped in March following public and political outcry.

Natural England now supports a policy of holding the current line of sea defences from Eccles to Winterton for 50 years.

Mrs Lowes’ role in helping to force Natural England to change its plans was praised by North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb who orchestrated a high-profile anti-flooding campaign.

He said: “She has been a star in this sort of grassroots uprising and pulled out all the stops in the most exemplary fashion. She absolutely deserves this recognition.”

Mrs Lowes was put forward for the good neighbour award by parish councillor Jacqui Mayle.

She said: “Susan is a resident who decided not to sit back and let things happen without putting up a fight.”

As a thank-you to members of the Save our Broads campaign, Mrs Lowes will be baking cakes for them when she celebrates her 60th birthday next month.

Story in the Great Yarmouth Mercury

The Norfolk Broads face severe damage from climate change unless more is done to help habitats recover, a report by Natural England said.

The study into the future of the Broads recommends new wetlands are created and species given more support before sea levels rise further.

The report authors found climate change will lead to the Broads becoming salty.

They said coastal defences will come under more pressure, while wetlands face harm from floods and drought.

‘New policies needed’

Natural England said changing conditions would also lead to the loss of some plants and animals.

They risk being replaced by non-native and “invasive” species, it said.

Shaun Thomas, Natural England’s East of England director, said: “There is a clear need for Natural England to continue its work with government, organisations with a stake in the Broads and local communities to develop integrated responses to climate change in this, the UK’s premier wetland.”

Mr Thomas said new policies were needed to determine how the Broads could adapt to climate change.

Stephen Johnson, chairman of the Broads Authority, said the research emphasised the “need to get our habitats robust and resilient”.

Natural England also confirmed its support for the current policy to maintain the line of defence on the stretch of coast between Eccles and Winterton for at least 50 years.

The Environment Agency said it would study Natural England’s report and give “careful consideration” to what action it takes.

Story on the BBC News website – watch the Video clip

In the Norfolk Broads report, Natural England confirms its support for the current policy to maintain the current line of defence on the Eccles-Winterton stretch of coast, for at least 50 years, re-iterating that it is an adviser on flood risk policy and not the final decision-maker.

Summary report: Responding to the impacts of climate change on the natural environment: The Broads – a summary