“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.

• Find out more about the North Norfolk Pathfinder

North Norfolk District Council is answering the Government’s call for ‘pathfinder’ bids for a share of £11 million designated to help coastal communities adapt to coastal change.

NNDC has been at the forefront of lobbying and policy-making on coastal adaptation, through national working groups comprising national Government departments and agencies alongside local councils, and, as a result, the Government is developing a Coastal Change Policy for England — supported by the £11 million fund for innovative adaptation projects.

The Government is inviting ideas for its Coastal Change Policy until 11 September. The consultation is looking for ways that communities can be supported in the face of an eroding coast, if sea defences cannot be justified. This might include taking a different approach to development control, giving councils the power to buy at-risk properties and lease them back to residents, giving people practical help if they lose their homes, and maintaining infrastructure that is vital for businesses and householders.

The Coastal Change Policy consultation documents can be found on the government’s website: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/coastal-change/

NNDC is applying to be a ‘pathfinder’ council, building on its experience of coastal management and working closely with communities to plan for coastal change.

Pathfinder projects are expected to develop imaginative local solutions to issues such as loss of investment, loss of confidence, blight and environmental degradation which affect many of our coastal settlements to varying degrees. The Council will also continue to campaign for long-term solutions by responding to the consultation and demonstrating innovative schemes that can be repeated elsewhere.

Councillor Clive Stockton is NNDC’s Cabinet Member for Coastal Strategy, and also sits on the National Local Government Association’s Coastal Special Interest Group. He said: “This initiative represents a step change in Government policy towards coastal management, recognising for the first time the plight of coastal communities and their need for support in confronting the changes which they face.”

Councillor Stockton urged people to respond to the Government’s consultation paper, saying: “What happens to our coast, and to the communities on it, affects the livelihood of the whole District. We are working closely with the Coastal Concern Action Group in developing our projects and we are anxious to ensure that we have the support of coastal communities, and that our projects respond appropriately to local needs. We are also keen to find partners in delivering the projects should we be successful in getting funding.”

The Council’s response to the Coastal Change Policy consultation and its pathfinder bid will be considered by NNDC’s Cabinet on 7 September.

For more information about coastal adaptation in North Norfolk and NNDC’s pathfinder project ideas, contact Rob Young, Coastal Planner, on 01263 516162 or email coastalmanagement@north-norfolk.gov.uk

People in coastal communities in north Norfolk are being given a chance to voice their views about the challenges faced by their erosion-threatened villages and towns.

Sixty residents and representatives are attending a meeting at Overstrand next Tuesday aimed at kick starting a conversation between the local council and communities.

North Norfolk District Council is developing a coastal management plan to tackle the issues for communities in the firing line for potential worsening erosion as sea defence policies change, but says it is crucial to get local people’s involvement.

The session, to be held at the historic Pleasaunce conference centre and staged by consultation consultants Dialogue by Design, will aim to:

• foster a mutual understanding of coastal issues
• identify common and site specific themes
• find a set of aims and values to underpin decisions on coastal management planning.

The district’s 44-mile of coastline is part of a stretch covered by an emerging Shoreline Management Plan, which includes long term abandonment of established sea defences in all areas bar the main resort towns of Sheringham and Cromer, and the nationally important Bacton gas site.

Coastal strategy planner Rob Young said the visioning conference would focus on wider issues than just sea defence policy. It would look at how communities could adapt and adjust to changes through compensation, relocation, and regeneration.

A strong voice would help when drawing up planning blueprints, coastal policies, and make funding bids.

District cabinet councillor for coastal issues Clive Stockton said: “There is no doubt that one of North Norfolk’s greatest assets is its beautiful coastline. The contribution it makes to the quality of life of the district’s residents and visitors as well as to the economy of the area cannot be underestimated.”

“However people in coastal communities are also all too familiar with the threats that the North Sea poses and of the fragile nature of our coastline. So far there has been little debate over how communities along whole length of our coast are going to respond to future changes.”

“The council wants to hear from communities about how we should manage coastal change, whatever its causes and effects.”

The invitation only meeting would help get opinions, and a wider public consultation will happen when the coastal management plan is published next year.

Concern Action Group campaigner Malcolm Kerby welcomed the council’s move to reflect people’s aspirations and wishes, and encouraged communities to have their say.

Story by Richard Batson in the Eastern Daily Press

An evidence gathering study aimed to derive data and support a strategy for the long-term management of change along the North Norfolk coast. The focus of the study is on managing change, to minimise the negative consequences of coastal erosion.

Adaptation to changing coastlines entails costs and how those costs are shared out raises issues of distributive justice. Many institutions have recognised that the current policy of putting the burden on the individual resident or business to manage the losses resulting from the change in approach to managing coastlines is unsustainable.

The final report of the evidence gathering study published in August 2008 is availble on the North Norfolk District Council website

Housing, businesses and other key facilities in coastal villages could be relocated further inland if they become threatened by erosion in a bid to keep vulnerable communities sustainable. A new policy, which is set to be adopted by North Norfolk District Council within months, makes provision for buildings to be moved to sites further from cliffs if worst case erosion predictions prove correct.

Read the full story on the North Norfolk News website