CAMPAIGNERS fighting to protect the county’s coastline from the ravages of the sea said last night that plans to vastly increase the dredging zone off Southwold could dramatically “speed up” erosion.

Marine aggregate companies want to dredge an area of seabed off the coast which campaigners claim would be 10 times the size of the current dredging zone being worked. (more…)

All 3 meetings were chaired by Malcolm Kerby of Coastal Concern Action Group in conjunction with Norman Lamb MP and were organised to give villagers the chance to voice their concerns following recent newspaper reports on Natural England plans to “abandon sea defences” in this area.

…

These are the main, recurring points from the meetings, and the attendance at the meetings show the strength of feeling of the local communities.

The vast majority agree that the coast must be defended, social justice must be included in any plan & the local communities will fight for their rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act if necessary.

They will petition the Government for assurances that this area will be defended.

Download CCAG notes from public meetings, April 2008 (PDF)

A legal victory by the tenant of a cliff-top chalet in East Anglia is good news for everybody living on the coast of England, it was claimed last night.

Charles England, the tenant of a chalet at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, has won an appeal against a refusal by conservation body Natural England to allow him to maintain the shingle sea defences protecting his property.

Last night his neighbour, Peter Boggis, who has spent £500,000 constructing his own sea defences along that stretch of coastline, said: “This decision has repercussions for everybody living on the coast of England. It means bureaucracy no longer has the upper hand to bully people and assure the destruction of their properties.”

Retired engineer Mr Boggis, who is spokesman for Easton Bavents Conservation and is fighting his own legal battle against Natural England over his defences, added: “I am thankful to the inspector and the secretary of state for the clarity of their decision.

“It has been hell to watch my, and my neighbour’s, property being destroyed at the whim of dictatorial agencies, having personally taken care to protect them without cost to the nation until forced to neglect them by Natural England in December 2005.”

Natural England, which declared the area a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) argued that protecting the cliffs would prevent access, study and analysis of geological exposures in the cliff. It said it was in the national interest that natural erosion should continue, and that this outweighed Mr England’s human rights.

But independent inspector Kenneth Smith reported to Defra that, contrary to Natural England’s insistence, the site’s special scientific interest was better served by protecting it against erosion than by allowing it to be destroyed.

He also decided that Natural England’s plans to force erosion on the occupiers would constitute an “unnecessary and disproportionate interference” with human rights.

His report has been accepted by environment secretary David Miliband, who has directed Natural England to issue a consent to recharge and maintain the part of the so-called “soft” sea defence in front of Mr England’s property. Mr England’s solicitor, Peter Scott, said: “This is a ground-breaking decision. It shows that Natural England are likely to be unable, through the creation of SSSIs, to force people to lose their properties to coastal erosion without paying compensation. This is a very significant development in a long-running campaign to save Easton Bavents from being destroyed by the North Sea”. Natural England was not available for comment.

Story by Jon Welch in the EDP