A controversial plan to deliberately breach a Wells flood bank has been discarded by environmental planners in response to a host of objections from landowners and townspeople.

The Environment Agency (EA) is finalising a draft shoreline management plan (SMP) designed to help the North Norfolk coast adapt to rising sea levels during the next century.

One of the ideas put forward was a £4.2m scheme to reconstruct Wells’ eastern defences further inland, allowing land behind the existing east bank to flood.

It was hoped the experimental plan would increase the tidal flow through Wells harbour, flushing away silt and keeping the channel navigable while maintaining flood defences for low-lying properties.

But the idea was criticised during a four-month public consultation last year, with concerns including the loss of farmland, the impact on wildlife and the consequences of increased tidal flow on the town’s Beach Road defences.

In response to those objections, the EA has now changed its proposed policy for Wells east bank from “managed re-alignment” to “hold the line”, meaning all existing defences would be maintained in their current position.

An EA spokesman said it proved the consultation was a genuine effort to engage with the public.

“The responses to that element of the draft plan were not positive, so we have listened to what people had to say and we have changed it to a proposal of ‘hold the line’,” she said.

“It is still considered a draft plan until it is formally adopted by local councils and committees. But we don’t anticipate any further changes. I would hope that people will realise that we do listen to them and, where public opinion is weighted in one direction and we can do something about it, then we do.”

Among the objectors to the scheme were the Holkham Estate, which owns 6,100 hectares of agricultural land and the protected Holkham National Nature Reserve.

Estates director David Horton-Fawkes wrote to the EA saying that protection of farmland should have been a higher priority while assumptions relating to effects on beach and marshland wildlife habitats were “flawed”.

Another concern was raised by Wells lifeboat coxswain Allen Frary, who said an increased tidal flow could add extra pressure on the opposite west bank, which protects his crew’s only access road to their rescue boat.

Dr Marie Strong, Norfolk county councillor for the Wells division, said: “This has come as a great relief to all the parishes involved, and everyone is very grateful to the EA for listening to them. This plan has still got to go through more process before it gets to district and county councils. The EA told us there will be more research, but they have promised us regular updates.”

Story by Chris Hill in the Eastern Daily Press

One of north Norfolk’s major landowners has voiced “real concerns” about long-term plans aimed at managing the impact of climate change along its coastal borders.

Senior Environment Agency (EA) planners are finalising an updated shoreline management plan (SMP) for the 75km stretch of coast from Hunstanton to Kelling.

A four-month public consultation on the draft ideas was completed in November with feedback due to be taken into account before final plans are presented to councils for adoption in March.

But a response from the Holkham Estate raises concern about the impact on farmland and freshwater habitats and says the consultation should be extended to allow direct dialogue on any changes made.

An EA spokesman said the estate had been involved in three key stakeholder workshops before the public consultation and all comments would be considered before the final plans were produced.

The estate owns 6,100 hectares of agricultural land, tourism and leisure businesses and the protected Holkham National Nature Reserve, which includes salt and freshwater marshes.

A letter from Holkham’s estates director David Horton-Fawkes and Mark Little, director of property firm Savills, says protection of farmland should be a higher priority, while assumptions relating to tidal effects should be revisited.

It says: “We have real concerns that a number of the parameters within which the SMP has been based are flawed. In particular, we are concerned that long-term records of marshland accretion and the impact of tidal forces in the area have been misinterpreted.

“Local knowledge indicates that some of the assumptions made will not be realised in practice.”

One of the draft SMP ideas was to move the eastern flood bank at Wells further inland, sacrificing farmland to allow a greater tidal flow while maintaining the flood protection for properties and roads.

The EA believes this would improve navigation by scouring the harbour, and reduce pressure on Holkham dunes as a natural flood defence and wildlife habitat.

The Holkham Estate letter says: “We are of the view that insufficient weight has been applied to the protection of agricultural land, with loss of such areas being disregarded within the cost/benefit analysis. This is particularly short-sighted in view of the future need for increased food supply and the associated food security issues.”

The letter also says there is no indication as to what compensation would be available if the proposals become policy. An EA spokesman said compensation for flooding losses was a matter for national government, and landowners were able to build their own defences subject to gaining relevant consents.

“We have always been open to direct dialogue with all landowners along the stretch of the north Norfolk shoreline management plan and we have received comments from the Holkham Estate which have been considered,” she said.

“Comments received during the consultation period have been taken into account and have led to some proposed changes to the SMP. These have yet to be considered and agreed by elected representatives.”

Story by Chris Hill in the Eastern Daily Press